espn_soccer_scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what data structure the scores return. The minimal text adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but under-informative. While it efficiently states the purpose, it lacks critical details that would justify its brevity as 'earned' space. A slightly longer description with usage hints would improve without verbosity.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how the league parameter affects results, or what happens when league is omitted. This lack of context may lead to incorrect agent assumptions.

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 for the 'league' parameter includes a description with examples ('eng.1, usa.1'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already provides adequate parameter guidance.

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 'Get soccer scores from ESPN' clearly identifies the domain (soccer) and source, distinguishing it from sibling tools like espn_nfl_scores. However, it is vague about the scope of scores returned (e.g., live, past, all leagues) and does not specify whether the optional league parameter filters results or is required.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as espn_nba_scores or espn_team_info. The sibling tools for different sports imply usage by sport, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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