highlightly_soccer_highlights

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description goes far beyond by warning that `url` and `embedUrl` are not interchangeable, that the return shape is unverified vendor documentation and must be inspected, and that a personal API key is required—valuable context preventing misuse and unrealistic expectations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact return-shape block, a critical URL distinction, a verification caveat, a concrete example, and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return shape, a concrete example, auth requirements, and a useful caveat that the shape is approximate. It does not specify default behavior when no filter is provided or how multiple filters interact, but the annotations and schema fill most critical gaps.

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 already fully describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not compensate. The date example illustrates a valid usage pattern but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema; no extra detail is given for matchId or leagueId formats, so the 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning football highlight clips filterable by match, league, or date, with the phrase 'The main tool here' establishing its primary role among highlightly siblings. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from the broader set of tool names.

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 frames the tool as the go-to for football highlights and provides a concrete date-based example, making when to use it clear. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like highlightly_soccer_matches or highlightly_soccer_leagues or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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