livescore_competition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the data is 'public page data,' that only 'visible sections' are returned, and that this is a route lookup rather than a directory. However, it does not describe output format, error behavior, data freshness, or pagination, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 action and resource are front-loaded, the path-sourcing guidance is placed before the scope caveat, and each sentence contributes either operational guidance or an important boundary.

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 read tool, the description covers the core inputs and scope, but there is no output schema and no annotations. 'Public page data' remains vague about the actual return contents, and the description does not mention what happens for invalid or unavailable routes, so an agent is left with some uncertainty.

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 coverage is 100% and the path parameter is already well-described with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling agents to source paths from LiveScore's public navigation and warning that competition ids and tabs vary by sport, which prevents guessing malformed URLs.

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 page data for a competition route or one of its visible sections.' It also clarifies scope with 'a route lookup, not a complete competition directory.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools such as livescore_scores or livescore_team, so full sibling differentiation is absent.

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 gives clear operational context: 'use paths linked from LiveScore's public navigation' and warns that 'competition ids and tabs vary by sport.' It also provides an exclusion by stating it is 'not a complete competition directory.' It never names alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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