flashscore_top_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are limited to ten or fewer, are public, and are a changing curated list. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, but the nature of returning results implies a read operation. The description adds some useful behavioral context but is not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the main action and includes a clarifying note about the list's nature without any redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It states the type of results (team, player, tournament) but does not describe the structure or fields of the output. This is a gap for an agent expecting to parse the results. However, the tool is simple and parameterless, and the description provides enough to understand its purpose and scope.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist. It does, however, add output context by specifying the number of results, which is relevant to expectations.

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 'the ten-or-fewer public team, player, and tournament results shown in Flashscore's search overlay.' This specifies the verb (returns), resource (top search entities), and scope (limited to 10 results). It also distinguishes itself from a complete directory, differentiating it from flashscore_search and similar search tools.

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 by noting it is a 'changing curated list, not a complete entity directory,' which suggests it is not for comprehensive searches. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like flashscore_search or state when to prefer this tool over others. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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