livescore_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a public team page section, implying a read-only operation, but provides no details on error handling, rate limits, pagination, or the exact structure of the response. The description does not mention any side effects or constraints beyond the return type. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is stated first, followed by a usage tip. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the text is appropriately front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary adjectives or redundant explanations.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey what the agent can expect from the response. It lists the possible sections (overview, fixtures, results, standings, squad, player stats, team stats), which gives a good sense of the data scope. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., HTML vs JSON), error behavior for invalid paths, or any limits. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive, leaving some gaps for an agent that needs to parse the response.

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 schema already describes the path parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds actionable context by explaining that the path should be copied from a LiveScore team tab href, which is not present in the schema's format specification. This supplementary guidance helps the agent source the correct value, adding value beyond the schema.

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 it returns a specific resource: 'LiveScore team page and section data'. It enumerates the exact sections (overview, fixtures, results, standings, squad, player stats, team stats) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like livescore_match or livescore_player by focusing on team page sections. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 practical guidance on how to obtain the required path: 'Tab paths and competition-specific identifiers are supplied by the source page; copy a team tab href from LiveScore.' This tells the agent where to find the input. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the selection decision implicit. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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