college-baseball

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return categories (venue, weather, predictions, play-by-play, stats), giving the agent an expectation of the response shape without an output schema. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence provides the purpose and scope, the second explains the required parameter source. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the major data types returned (venue, weather, win predictions, play-by-play, team stats), which sufficiently prepares an agent for typical use. Simple tool with one parameter, so this is adequately complete.

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%: matchId is described as a 'Highlightly match ID (from scoreboard results)' with an example. The description repeats the scoreboard source but adds no new parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 function: 'Get detailed information about a specific college baseball game' and enumerates content areas (venue, weather, win predictions, play-by-play, team stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsi_get_scoreboard (list games) and bsi_get_player_stats (individual stats).

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 clear context by stating 'Use a match ID from the scoreboard', which implies a workflow: first consult the scoreboard, then this tool for details. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the prerequisite is helpful and distinguishes it from stat/ranking 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the output content (identity, team, position, stats) and the caveat that stats are returned 'when the source provides them,' which discloses variability in results. This goes beyond the annotations and schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and output. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 simple read-only search tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, return content, and the source-dependent nature of stats. The annotations handle safety, and the schema covers parameters. No output schema exists, so the description adequately fills the gap without needing to detail return formats.

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 already documents both parameters with descriptions: 'player' and 'team' (optional for disambiguation). The tool description mentions searching by name but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific function: searching for a college baseball player by name and returning identity, team, position, and batting/pitching stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bsi_get_rankings or bsi_get_schedule, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve player statistics by name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools. No direct 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds value by describing the return contents (rank, team, record, movement, source, fetch time), which is useful given no output schema exists. It does not contradict 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists included fields. No wasted words; every part carries information.

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 a simple no-input read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and the context for its use. Sibling names further situate it in the broader API.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than adding parameter meaning.

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 gets the national college baseball Top 25 from the rankings source, listing key included fields (rank, team, record, movement, source, fetch time). This distinguishes it from siblings like standings or scoreboard.

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 implies usage for retrieving rankings, and the sibling tool names provide context for when this would be appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons, but the context is clear enough for a simple no-parameter tool.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about 'configured providers' and includes 'source and fetch time' in the output, which helps the agent understand the data's provenance and freshness. It does not contradict 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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get college baseball scores') and then lists what is included. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

The tool is relatively simple with no output schema and only two optional parameters. The description adequately lists the output fields and implies the tool returns aggregated scores. It doesn't explicitly state the default date behavior, but that is in the schema. For this complexity level, the description is nearly complete.

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% for both optional parameters (date and conference), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description does not repeat or enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource: 'college baseball scores and game results.' It lists concrete data fields (team names, scores, venue, game status, source, fetch time) and the tool name 'get_scoreboard' aligns with an aggregated scoreboard, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_match_detail' or 'get_team_schedule.'

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 implies usage for fetching scoreboard data for a date, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bsi_get_match_detail' for a single game or 'bsi_get_team_schedule' for a team's schedule. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'current' aspect and the list of returned stats, which is useful but does not provide additional behavioral context like pagination or rate limits.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the data fields. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return content by listing the stats. The lack of explicit 'all conferences' mention is covered by the schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% with a clear description of the 'conference' parameter, including examples and note about omitting for all conferences. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: retrieving current college baseball conference standings with a detailed list of included statistics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rankings and scoreboards by specifying 'standings' and the exact metrics.

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 implies usage (when you need conference standings) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like bsi_get_rankings or bsi_get_scoreboard. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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 the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by noting the caveat 'when the source provides them,' indicating that schedule data completeness may vary. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and includes only necessary information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and limitations, with no redundancy or 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 one simple parameter fully described in the schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the exact structure of 'schedule records,' but this is not critical for using the tool correctly.

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 provides a comprehensive description for the 'team' parameter with examples, so the description does not add additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to compensate.

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 retrieves schedule records for a college baseball team, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schedule records'). It also clarifies scope ('past results and upcoming games') and distinguishes from sibling tools like scoreboard or standings by focusing on the team's schedule.

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 implies usage when a team's schedule is needed, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it relies on contextual inference rather than explicit 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as defaulting to trusted college-baseball domains and returning the provider in response metadata. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and wastes no words. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second provides usage guidance and a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the use case, domain default, and metadata return. It does not describe the full response format, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall adequate and complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (query, limit, domains). The description only reiterates the domain default behavior already present in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Hence the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches the open web for specific types of college-baseball content (news, scouting reports, beat-writer coverage, analytical commentary). The phrase 'Use this when a question needs narrative context' explicitly differentiates it from the structured-data siblings like bsi_get_rankings or bsi_get_scoreboard, making the purpose highly distinguishable.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool ('when a question needs narrative context'), implying it is for unstructured or qualitative queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' exclusions, but the sibling list and the contrast with structured data make the usage boundary reasonably clear. Lacks the explicit alternative naming needed for a 5.

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