footballdataorg_scorers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds a key requirement (403 without) and a caveat that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified. This provides valuable context beyond annotations.

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 the core purpose first, followed by return shape, caveat, example, and auth. The auth requirement is mentioned twice, which is slightly redundant, but the overall organization is efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, return shape, and an example. It lacks explicit alternative guidance but is otherwise complete enough for safe invocation.

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% with all parameters described. The description's example ('competition: PL', 'limit: 10') is illustrative but does not add new semantic meaning 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 'Top scorers in a competition', specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like standings or matches. The example reinforces the intended use.

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 context is clear: use when needing top scorers for a competition. It also notes the auth prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like footballdataorg_standings.

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