flashscore_scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'The upstream field-delimited text is preserved because field semantics vary by sport,' alerting the agent that output is raw text rather than a normalized structure. It also states the feed is 'public.' It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the critical operational quirk is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, the raw-text quirk is stated in the second sentence, and the sibling routing is in the third. 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?

With only two parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what is returned, the raw-text format quirk, and the discovery tools for sport keys. It doesn't detail the raw text delimiter, but the description intentionally defers to sport-specific field semantics, which justifies the omission.

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 description coverage is 100%: sport is described as 'Sport key' and day_offset as 'Days from today; -7 to 7; defaults to 0.' The description adds a minor hint about discovering sport keys via flashscore-sports and calls day_offset a 'date-picker day offset,' but the schema already carries most of the parameter meaning. Baseline 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 verb and resource: 'Returns the public score feed for one sport and date-picker day offset.' It is clear this tool provides scores and fixtures, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its exact scope (one sport, one day offset). The name is not simply restated; the description adds operational detail.

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 explicitly names alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Use flashscore-sports to discover sport keys, flashscore-navigation for the current category/country/competition directory, and flashscore-competitions for competitions on the selected date.' This gives the agent clear routing guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings.

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