Game Day Weather

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds substantial domain behavior beyond that: ordering, data provenance from published boards, report-card grade appending, interpretation rules for chip/DOME/afterTip/fantasy/roof, and licensing constraints. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but its behavioral disclosure is otherwise unusually rich.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and then explains the returned fields in a logical order. It is somewhat long and repeats 'does not change the call' across several notes, but those details are warranted because there is no output schema.

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 must explain return values and does so thoroughly by naming fields and their interpretation rules. It is complete enough for invocation and interpretation, though it leaves response envelope and pagination behavior implicit.

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 100%, so the single gameId parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description reinforces that gameId selects one game, but adds no format or validation meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource and scope: every published snapshot for one game, ordered oldest first, keyed by gameId. It is specific enough to distinguish this as a game-level history read, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_game, get_week_board, or get_changes.

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 only direct usage instruction is 'Pass gameId.' There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_game, get_changes, get_report_card, or get_week_board, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral rules: change thresholds, baseline selection, roof-counting conditions, and what does not count as a call change. It also explains field semantics and edge cases such as DOME chip display and afterTip being a quiet note.

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 purpose and parameters are front-loaded, but the description becomes a dense wall of field-level rules and edge cases. Much of this is useful because there is no output schema, but it is not concise and could be better structured.

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 complexity, two parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers change thresholds, baseline behavior, output field interpretation, display rules, and caveats needed to understand the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful clarification beyond the schema, especially that since is compared against the latest board snapshot at or before that instant and that the week's first snapshot becomes the baseline if none qualifies.

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 a specific retrieval operation: games whose published call, roof, window, or kick-window reading moved. It states the returned resource and the core change condition, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_week_board or get_call_history.

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 gives concrete usage details for the required since parameter and the optional weekId, including the baseline behavior when no snapshot exists at or before since. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_week_board, get_call_history, or other sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: field precedence, the fact that chip does not replace call, DOME display rules, afterTip/fantasy/roof caveats, changesSinceThursday behavior, and licensing terms. This is unusually rich for an agent-facing definition.

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 is front-loaded and most sentences add domain-specific field semantics or caveats. The paragraph is dense and could be better structured, but it avoids obvious 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 does a good job explaining key return fields and precedence rules. Some referenced fields, such as note and hours, are only named rather than fully defined, leaving a modest completeness 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?

The single weekId parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the YYYY-wNN pattern and omission for the current week. The description repeats the optional/current-week behavior but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific filter: games whose call is FLAG or WATCH, with optional week scoping. It clearly identifies the resource but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_week_board or get_changes.

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?

Explains that weekId is optional and that call should be read before note, chip, and hours. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_week_board, get_changes, or get_game.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by explaining domain semantics: chip is a threshold check that 'does not replace the call', a posted DOME call overrides chip.level unless the roof is confirmed open, roof.status 'does not change call', and afterTip is a note rather than a flag. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not derive from the annotations, though it is delivered in a dense, unordered way.

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 lead is a wasted restatement of the title, and the body is a run-on inventory of output fields ('Read call first, then note, then chip and hours...') with no paragraph or list structure. Most sentences do carry domain information, so little is truly filler, but the ordering and front-loading are poor.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning; it names several fields (call, chip.level, afterTip, fantasy, roof.status, changesSinceThursday) but does not clearly delimit the response shape, omitting 'note' and 'hours' definitions despite referencing them. Adequate domain hints, incomplete as a specification.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a real interaction rule absent from the schema: weekId is optional, and 'a gameId selects that game's week when weekId is omitted.' It also restates the team-code form, which is redundant but harmless.

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 'One game' merely restates the title 'One game', which is tautological. Only the second sentence ('Pass team ... or gameId') implies it retrieves a single game's weather call information, and it never states the verb or explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_team_games or get_week_board.

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 gives useful call-shape guidance ('Pass team or gameId', 'Optional weekId; omit it for the current week', 'A gameId selects that game's week when weekId is omitted') and a prescribed reading order ('Read call first, then note, then chip'). However, there is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools, and the licensing sentence ('Not for model training') is not usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context ('The response includes season-to-date totals', 'Grades are historical', and field-interpretation notes like afterTip being a quiet note, fantasy not changing the call). However the field prose is dense and confusing, diluting the added value.

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 is front-loaded, but the body degenerates into run-on fragments about calls, chips, roof status, and fantasy notes that are hard to parse and mix routing advice with response-field semantics. Several sentences ('call is the weather call', 'chip is the kickoff ±2h threshold check') read like leaked content from another tool and do not earn their place here.

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, describing return fields (call, chip, roof.status, fantasy, changesSinceThursday) is a legitimate gap-filler and partially complete. But the explanation is so tangled and mixes in cross-tool routing that an agent still cannot form a clean mental model of the response.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents weekId's pattern, example, and the omit-for-newest default. The description merely restates 'Optional weekId (YYYY-wNN). Omit it for the newest published card' without adding format or edge-case detail, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 states a specific resource ('A published Sideline report card, the same cards as /report-cards') with the default behavior ('Omit it for the newest published card'). The purpose is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_week_board or get_game, and the tail of the description drifts into field-level detail that obscures the core identity.

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 gives the one real usage rule ('Omit it for the newest published card') and briefly routes live weather call lookups to get_game, which is a genuine alternative reference. But the routing sentence is garbled ('use get_game and Read call first, then note, then chip and hours'), so the when-to-use guidance is only implied and hard to follow.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: precedence rules for reading the response (call, then note, then chip and hours), that chip is a threshold check that does not replace the call, the DOME display rule when a roof is confirmed open, that afterTip is a quiet note rather than a flag, and licensing terms (free with attribution, not for training). Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 purpose and input rules are front-loaded, which is good, but the text then drifts into a long run of field-level notes with internal redundancy ('call is the weather call', chip explained twice by negation). Given there is no output schema, some of this earns its place, but it is longer than it needs to be for a two-parameter lookup.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so for most of them: call, chip.level/DOME behavior, afterTip, fantasy (140-char limit, non-normative), roof.status, changesSinceThursday, notFound, and bye. A few items (note, hours) are named without explanation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the weekId format YYYY-wNN and the omit-for-current-week behavior. The description mainly repeats this ('Optional weekId; omit it for the current week') and adds only the 'pass team names not fantasy names' caveat, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (published weather calls for NFL team codes) and a specific scope (one week), which separates it from a single-game tool like get_game. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it should be chosen over, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives input guidance (pass team codes like ["PIT","HOU"], omit weekId for the current week) and a publisher constraint (no fantasy-platform connection), but never says when to use this instead of get_game, get_week_board, or get_changes. It notes changesSinceThursday exists 'since the Thursday board' without routing the agent to the dedicated sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful field-level behavior, including that call is the weather call, chip is only a threshold check, roof.status is an announcement, and changesSinceThursday is a change list. It also notes attribution/training restrictions, though it omits rate-limit or auth details.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is a dense run-on sequence of field notes with unclear ordering. For a one-parameter read tool, several sentences are hard to parse and do not earn their place cleanly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it covers several important fields and caveats but does not give the overall board structure or fully enumerate all returned fields. It is adequate but incomplete for a rich board response.

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 coverage is 100% and weekId already documents the pattern and omission behavior. The description adds useful context: regular-season weeks are 1–18 and the current week remains on 18 after the last kickoff window.

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?

States a specific verb/resource: the full public board for one NFL week, with regular-season range and current-week default. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as get_changes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explains the weekId default behavior when omitted, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives among sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the general weekly-board read rather than a specialized history/change/flag call.

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