flashscore_match_h2h

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully warns that the raw upstream feed is preserved as text because the format is not JSON, which is an important trait beyond the schema. It does not disclose potential response size, error behavior, or freshness, but the key format caveat is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient, with the core return statement front-loaded and the format caveat placed last. The first sentence 'Flashscore match head-to-head and recent results' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but overall every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned, how to obtain the id, and the raw-text format. It does not detail the structure of the returned text, but the raw-feed warning makes the data's nature clear enough for invocation decisions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear eight-character id description. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the id comes from a Flashscore match URL, which helps the agent source the correct value beyond what the schema alone states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns Flashscore's public head-to-head and recent-results feed for a match id, with a specific resource and input. It is not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like flashscore_match_stats, but the resource name 'head-to-head and recent results' is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when you have a Flashscore match id from a Flashscore match URL, which is useful context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as preferring flashscore_match_stats for statistics or sofascore_event_h2h for a different source.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.