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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. Beyond those annotations, the description discloses the fallback behavior: returning the game on a specified date, or the last three finished and next three games when no date is given, along with returned fields such as game_id, start time, state, week, score, and page URLs.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero wasted phrasing. The primary usage condition is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and exclusions.

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 read-only lookup tool with full schema descriptions and annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing context: exact use cases, fallback return behavior, and sibling exclusions. There is no output schema, but the description lists the key returned fields so an agent knows what to expect.

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 parameter documentation is already strong. The description still adds meaning by clarifying the date behavior: a date retrieves that day's game, while omitting the date returns recent and upcoming games, and by framing opponent matching as a specific meeting between the pair.

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 states a specific verb and resource: finding a team's game and retrieving its game_id. It gives concrete examples such as 'Lakers next game' and 'Cowboys vs Eagles on November 23', and explicitly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like tonight_slate and head_to_head.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when the user asks about one team's game on a date, its next or last game, or a specific meeting. It also names alternatives for excluded cases: the whole slate (tonight_slate) and pair history (head_to_head).

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