Scores en direct

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by noting a 30-second cache and the empty-array return when no matches are ongoing. The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra details are meaningful and non-contradictory.

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 extremely compact, with every phrase earning its place: it states what is returned, adds the cache detail, and handles the no-match edge case. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential behavior: current matches, live scores, caching, and empty result. An output schema is absent, so the exact shape of each live score entry is not specified, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any input schema. Schema description coverage is effectively 100%, and the description adds relevant output semantics (live scores, empty result) that help the agent understand what the tool returns.

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 clearly identifies the resource (ongoing/live matches) and the output (live scores, empty array if no match). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as ffbb_last_result or ffbb_next_match.

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 phrase 'Matchs en cours' implies the tool should be used when the agent needs current live scores, and the 30s cache hints at near-real-time data. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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