sofascore_event_incidents

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

The description notes that the data comes from 'credential-free public JSON' (no authentication needed) and that an empty incidents list is valid before kickoff. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or data freshness expectations. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value (resource, contents, and special case). No unnecessary 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, type of data returned, source, and a valid edge case. It does not cover error conditions or return structure, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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% (one parameter with description 'Numeric SofaScore event (match) id'). The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 a match's incidents including goals, cards, substitutions, and period timeline from SofaScore's public JSON. It explicitly specifies the resource (match incidents) and distinguishes itself from siblings like sofascore_event_lineups or sofascore_event_statistics by focusing on incidents only.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many SofaScore siblings (e.g., sofascore_event, sofascore_event_h2h). The agent is left to infer based on the name alone.

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