apitennis_livescore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable caveats: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, and authentication requires the user's own API key. These go beyond the structured annotations and build trust.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, return shape example, a necessary caveat, and auth note. Every sentence is purposeful, though slightly long due to the safety note. It earns a 4, not 5, due to the extra caveat length.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by providing an approximate return structure and explicitly warning it may be inaccurate. It also includes auth requirements and a usage example. This covers the core context without over-explaining.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example showing the default method, but does not provide further meaning beyond the schema's 'Leave as-is' and 'Restrict to one event type' for the two parameters. No additional semantic depth.

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 provides live scores for matches in progress, using the specific verb 'with live scores' and resource 'matches in progress right now'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apitennis_fixtures, but the phrase 'in progress right now' establishes the live-match scope.

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 implies usage when the agent needs current live scores for in-progress matches, giving clear context. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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