fpl_live_gameweek

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds valuable behavior: the returned JSON structure, the meaning of `explain` for reconciling scores, and the empty-array pre-season edge case. It also clarifies authentication expectations (no key required, cookie unlocks more), which is beyond the 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 organized in clear blocks (purpose, returns, example, auth) and every sentence adds information. The JSON snippet is long but serves to document the output, which is justified given no output schema.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core output structure, explain semantics, edge case, and auth context. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but otherwise provides sufficient context for invocation and interpretation.

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% (gameweek: integer 1-38 required), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description's example `{"gameweek": 1}` confirms usage but adds no extra parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb+object: 'Live per-player scoring for a gameweek' with the key qualifier 'as they are being earned.' This distinguishes it from sibling FPL tools like fpl_gameweeks or fpl_player_detail, which focus on schedules or static player data.

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 provides clear context: it is for live scoring, with an example call and a note that empty results pre-season are normal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'live' framing and empty-result semantics give enough guidance.

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