flashscore_match_stats

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context beyond the schema: the raw upstream feed is preserved as text because its format is not JSON. This tells the agent to expect non-structured output. It doesn't cover error handling or edge cases, but for a simple public feed tool this is a meaningful disclosure.

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 composed of two tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Flashscore match statistics'), and the rest adds necessary detail about the input source and output format. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the format (raw text, non-JSON), and how to source the match id. An agent has all necessary information to call it correctly.

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 already describes the sole parameter as an 'Eight-character Flashscore match id' (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that the id is 'copied from a Flashscore match URL', clarifying how an agent should obtain it. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Flashscore's public delimited statistics feed for a match id.' This clearly identifies the tool as one that retrieves match statistics. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like flashscore_match_h2h or flashscore_match_lineups, but the phrase 'match statistics' is precise enough for most agents.

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 when to use the tool by stating it returns statistics for a match id 'copied from a Flashscore match URL.' It gives helpful context about the input source but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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