get_scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the 'current matchweek' default behavior, the inclusive range semantics, and the requirement that end_date depends on date. No contradictions exist.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by bullet-like argument behavior and an Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema details 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?

All argument behaviors and constraints are fully documented, including the default case, date-only case, and date-range case. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The tool is simple and the description covers all necessary usage context.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly defines each parameter, including the YYYYMMDD format and the dependency of end_date on date. This fully compensates for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get MLS match scores and status for a date or date range.' It further clarifies behavior based on arguments (no args, date only, date+end_date), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_match_details or get_team_schedule.

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 clear context for when to use each argument combination: no arguments returns the current matchweek, date returns a single day, and both date and end_date provide an inclusive range. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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