flashscore_match_highlights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that video content is not fetched, output is the provider's raw delimited text, and matches without highlights return not found. It could add more context about response structure or potential errors, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and informative, with each sentence adding a distinct fact: what is returned, what is not returned, and not-found behavior. The opening fragment 'Flashscore match highlights' is mildly redundant with the tool name, but overall there is no wasted content.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: output content, output format, the video exclusion, and the empty-result behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a bit more detail about the delimited text structure would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema description already documents the sole parameter as an eight-character Flashscore match id, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: it returns Flashscore match highlight identifiers, metadata, and video links. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like flashscore_match_stats and flashscore_match_info by the highlight-specific subject.

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 usage for retrieving match highlights and notes the not-found case, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any conditions that would make a sibling more appropriate. Given the large Flashscore sibling set, explicit routing guidance would strengthen this dimension.

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