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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them while adding value beyond them: data provenance (Source: TheSportsDB), per-call cost ($0.02 USDC), and a verification mechanism for the attestation receipt. It omits rate limits and data freshness cadence, but the cost and provenance disclosures exceed the baseline for an annotation-covered read tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by source, attestation, verification, and pricing. Each sentence carries information; the 'post-quantum signed settlement receipt' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy but not 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 zero-parameter, annotation-backed read tool, the description covers what data is returned, the time window, the source, and the cost. Since there is no output schema, it partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields, though it stops short of specifying response shape or edge cases (e.g., offseason windows with no games), so not a 5.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 and there is no schema gap to compensate for. The description still adds semantic value by clarifying the data scope the parameterless call returns (teams, scores, statuses, league/season), which the empty input schema cannot convey.

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 the resource and verb explicitly ('Live NBA scores, game status, and results') with a precise scope (past 7 days and next 7 days) and enumerates return fields (home/away teams, scores, game status, league/season context). The explicit 'NBA' disambiguates it from siblings like get_sports_mlb_scores, get_sports_nfl_scores, and get_sports_nhl_scores without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use: the ±7-day window and the game-status values (live, final, upcoming) tell an agent exactly what scenarios this covers. However, it never names alternatives or excludes cases, notably the multi-sport sibling get_sports_scores_multi, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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