entitysport_match_scorecard

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical transparency: the response shape is from vendor documentation and NOT verified against a live response, warning agents to inspect the actual payload. It also discloses the authentication requirement (ENTITYSPORT_TOKEN). These are valuable behavioral insights that annotations do not cover.

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 and efficient: a one-sentence purpose, a compact return-shape block, a clear caveat about unverified data, an example, and an auth note. Every sentence carries necessary information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description takes on the full burden of explaining the return structure, which it does in detail (innings, batsmen, bowlers, extras, equations, fows, did_not_bat). It also includes the important caveat that the shape is approximate and the auth requirement, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly and set expectations.

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 fully describes matchId with type and required status, and the description merely adds an example value (12345). With schema description coverage at 100%, the description adds minimal new parameter semantics, so a baseline of 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 opens with 'Full innings-by-innings scorecard,' which clearly identifies the tool's specific function and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entitysport_match_info and entitysport_match_commentary by emphasizing the detailed inning-by-inning breakdown with batting and bowling statistics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the siblings. It does not state when to prefer this over entitysport_match_info or entitysport_match_commentary, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth note. The example shows a call but does not help select the tool contextually.

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