betfair_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: the return structure (top-level array with eventId, eventTypeId, score object) and the fact that no authentication is required. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence, a return type snippet, and an auth note. Every part adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

For a read-only, idempotent lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what events it covers, gives the return shape, and notes auth requirements. It could mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for selection.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (_ak, alt, locale, eventIds). The description's phrase 'one or more in-play events' aligns with eventIds but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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's function: 'Live scores for one or more in-play events (per-sport score detail)'. It uses a specific resource and scope, and the mention of 'per-sport score detail' distinguishes it from sibling tools like betfair_scores_broadcast and betfair_event_timelines.

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 explicitly notes this is for 'in-play events', giving clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous given the sibling set (e.g., betfair_scores_broadcast for broadcast feeds).

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