isportsapi_football_live

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, the actual payload should be inspected, and a personal API key is required. This reliability caveat and auth requirement go beyond the 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 well-structured and economically written: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. Every sentence contributes information; there is no fluff. The front-loaded purpose sentence immediately answers 'what does this do?'.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it provides the return field names, distinguishes data placement, notes the unverified shape, includes an example, and gives auth information. It lacks explicit status vocabulary but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return shape and data placement rather than parameters. It adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 resource and scope: 'Football matches in play now.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting that corners and cards 'live here rather than in a separate statistics call' and by the live vs. schedule/odds context of sibling tool names. Despite lacking an explicit verb, the intent is unambiguous.

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: use it to get live in-play matches, and it explicitly indicates where to find corners/cards ('live here rather than in a separate statistics call'). It also states the auth prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, 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.