livescore_news_article

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 that the record is 'public' (implying no auth) and that structured content appears only 'when supplied by LiveScore' — a useful variability caveat. It does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or response details beyond 'full article record,' leaving the behavioral picture adequate but thin.

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 compact: a noun-phrase opener, a purpose statement, and a parameter-source instruction. The first fragment 'LiveScore news article.' is mildly redundant with the tool name, but the rest is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of the return-value and edge-case burden. It gives a partial picture ('full article record', 'structured content when supplied') but omits what happens on an invalid path and what fields the record contains. For a simple one-parameter read, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already describes path precisely as 'Two to eight lowercase path segments after /en/news/, copied from an article slug.' The description adds the cross-tool hint that the slug originates from /livescore/news, which reinforces the schema and gives the agent a concrete source. This small extra meaning justifies moving above the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Returns the public full article record, including the article's structured content when supplied by LiveScore.' This identifies the tool as a single-article fetch rather than a list or feed. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling like livescore_news or livescore_news_feed to make that differentiation overt, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 instruction 'Copy the path following /en/news/ from an article slug in /livescore/news' provides a concrete workflow and prerequisite, telling the agent exactly where to obtain the required path parameter. It implies when to use the tool (after browsing the news list) but does not state alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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