get_scoreboard

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

Annotations already flag read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the inclusive date range semantics, the dependency of end_date on date, and the default behavior without arguments. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by concise paragraphs explaining behavior and an Args list. Each sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy. The Args section repeats some prose but in a scannable format, which is acceptable.

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 the simple two-parameter design, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics thoroughly. It explains all argument modes and the date format. It does not discuss return structure, but that is complemented by the output schema. A small gap is the lack of explicit cross-referencing to sibling tools, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides param names and types but no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the format (YYYYMMDD), optionality, the relationship between date and end_date, and the resulting behavior for each combination. This is essential information for correct invocation.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Get Premier League match scores and status for a date or date range.' It uses an action verb, identifies the resource (match scores/status), and specifies the scope. The subsequent sentences clarify behavior for different argument combinations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_teams or get_standings.

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 on how to invoke the tool with no arguments, with date only, and with both date and end_date. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the detailed argument behavior serves as practical guidance. A brief mention of get_match_details for single-match queries would have elevated it to 5.

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