get_scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond these: the default no-argument behavior (current matchweek), the inclusive date range, and the dependency that end_date requires date. This contextualizes the tool's behavior in a way annotations alone cannot.

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 model: a single-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. No fluff, no repetition. Front-loads the primary purpose and then granularly details each parameter and usage mode. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers all invocation modes (none, date only, date+end_date), parameter format, and constraints. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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 full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains both parameters: date is an optional start date in YYYYMMDD format with an example, and end_date is optional but requires date. It also clarifies the semantic relationship between parameters, going well beyond the raw schema.

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 USL Super League match scores and status for a date or date range.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_standings (tables), get_match_details (specific match), and get_team_schedule (team fixtures). The scope and output are 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 behavioral context for when to use the tool: no arguments gives current matchweek, single date gives one day, date range gives inclusive range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenarios are thoroughly defined, making it clear when this tool should be selected.

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