livescore_scores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by explaining the full-day vs. paged behavior, cursor usage via Nav values, and the need to pass the last section Id as the next cursor. It omits details like rate limits, authentication, or exact response shape, but core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes the output modes, and the third explains the paging mechanism. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers paging well but leaves some gaps: it does not describe what a scoreboard response contains, how timezone_offset affects results, or how to choose between this and sibling score tools. It is workable but not fully complete for a six-parameter tool.

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 genuine value by explaining the paging contract: Nav values signal additional pages and the last section Id serves as the cursor. It also points to /livescore/sports for valid sport ids, which goes beyond the schema's enum list.

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 LiveScore scores and fixtures by sport and date, and it specifies the two possible output modes: a full-day scoreboard or a paged UI-style section. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like livescore_live_scores or flashscore_scores, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve scores/fixtures for a given sport and date. It also usefully notes that sport ids come from /livescore/sports. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as livescore_live_scores, and it offers no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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