Scores of a day

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses league ordering, score orientation, status values, and the non-obvious meaning of "incomplete". Sport-specific scoring fields and the Tehran/Jalali day-rollover caveat provide additional behavior essential to interpreting live results correctly.

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?

Purpose and example intents are front-loaded, followed by sibling routing, result-size advice, output interpretation, and the temporal edge case. Although dense, each sentence earns its place; even the long "incomplete" parenthetical resolves a genuine ambiguity rather than adding filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the missing result semantics, including match ids, ordering, score format, statuses, and volleyball and basketball scoring details. Together with the fully documented input schema, it gives an agent enough information to select, invoke, and interpret the tool, including the important day-boundary caveat.

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 already documents all six parameters, but the description adds meaningful operational context: team or league filtering keeps answers short, league ordering affects how capped results should be understood, and day=0 follows the site's Jalali-day switch rather than simply civil midnight. Most filter syntax, defaults, and limits still come from the schema, so the added parameter semantics are strong rather than exhaustive.

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 opening sentence specifies the operation, resource, source, and precise scope: live scores, results, and fixtures for one day across leagues on Varzesh3. The handoff to v3_match further distinguishes this day-level listing tool from match-detail retrieval.

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?

It explicitly maps the tool to intents such as "what is on today", "Perspolis result", and "live matches now". It also gives concrete alternative routing: pass a returned match id to v3_match when goals, cards, or lineups are needed.

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