flashscore_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It goes beyond a generic 'search' label by disclosing that the index is public, scoped to supported sports, and can return mixed entity types. It does not cover return format or pagination, but for a simple search read operation, the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 minimal waste; the second and third sentences efficiently add scope, result-type context, and the 'same index' provenance. The first sentence ('Flashscore search.') is slightly redundant with the tool name, preventing a perfect score.

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 search endpoint with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the key practical questions: which index is searched, what entity types to expect, and the sports scope. It does not mention output format or pagination, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap modest.

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% — the single parameter 'q' is already documented with its length constraint. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('public entity index used by Flashscore's search box'), and names the result entity types (teams, players, tournament templates). This differentiates it from other sports search tools like sofascore_search or fotmob_search, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 (whenever an agent needs to search Flashscore's entity index) and gives context about supported sports and result types. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternative routing (e.g., flashscore_top_search for trending queries, flashscore_navigation for browsing), leaving the when-not-to-use guidance to inference.

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