livescore_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the data is 'public' and limited to 'article-card metadata', implying a read-only listing rather than full article content. However, it does not mention response format, pagination, or what happens with invalid or empty category paths.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter-discovery hint is placed second. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is mostly complete: it states what is returned, the public nature of the data, and how to find valid parameter values. The only notable gap is the lack of any indication of response shape or pagination, but for a simple metadata listing this is not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that category paths can represent sport, competition, team, tips, and daily-feed routes, and by telling the agent where to discover valid paths.

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 ('Returns') with a precise object ('public article-card metadata') scoped to 'a LiveScore news route'. The phrase 'by category or topic' helps distinguish it from general news feeds and full-article endpoints, especially sibling tools like livescore_news_article and livescore_news_feed.

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?

It explicitly points the agent to '/livescore/news-categories' to discover valid category/topic paths, which is actionable usage guidance and signals a prerequisite step. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives like livescore_news_article, but the context of 'article-card metadata' makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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