get_gameweek_live_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the return format (sorted by points, bonus-processing status), but it omits other important behavioral traits such as read-only safety, potential errors for invalid gameweek IDs, rate limits, or how it behaves when no live matches exist. The description does not contradict any annotations (since there are none), but it offers minimal transparency beyond the basic return summary.

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 single-sentence purpose statement, a clean Args list, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any redundant or filler text, making it easy to scan.

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 has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and gives a high-level return summary. However, it lacks detail about the exact structure of player stats (e.g., keys, data types) and does not address edge cases like empty gameweeks, invalid player IDs, or the status of bonus processing. It is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves some gaps for an agent needing exact response handling.

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 schema itself has zero descriptions on its properties (coverage 0%), but the description thoroughly compensates with an Args block that explains each parameter: gameweek_id defaults to the current gameweek, player_ids optionally restricts to specific FPL IDs, and limit caps the result count when player_ids is not provided. This adds meaningful semantic context 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Get live player points and stats for a gameweek while matches are being played.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gameweek_status or get_blank_gameweeks, which focus on scheduling/status rather than live in-play scoring.

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 'while matches are being played' implies the intended use case, and the parameter descriptions clarify defaults and optional behavior. However, there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use this tool or direct references to alternative tools (e.g., 'use get_gameweek_status for completed gameweeks'), leaving usage guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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