mfl_live_scoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the return structure, the significance of playersYetToPlay, and the auth requirement (works without key; MFL_COOKIE unlocks more). No contradictions with 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, return structure, a key interpretive note, an example, and auth in just a few lines. No wasted words or duplication of schema content.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return shape and the meaning of a critical field. It includes an example and auth info. It does not mention pagination or default week behavior (though that's in the schema), but for a read-only live-scoring tool this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides an example with year and L but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 states a specific resource ('Live matchup state') and enumerates the exact content: each franchise's score, game seconds remaining, and who has yet to play. It distinguishes itself from sibling MFL tools like mfl_player_scores and mfl_schedule by focusing purely on live status.

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 gives a clear context (live scoring) and an example call, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any alternative tools. With many MFL siblings, a note about when to prefer mfl_projected_scores or mfl_player_scores would elevate it. The 'honest read' comment helps interpret output but not selection.

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