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

Annotations already mark read-only and non-destructive. The description goes beyond by disclosing the data source (TheSportsDB), cost per call, and cryptographic attestation with verification instructions. This adds meaningful context not present in structured metadata.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core function, followed by scope, return contents, source, and cost. There is no waste; every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, the time range, source, cost, and verification path. Nothing critical is missing, and the output format is implicitly described by listing the fields returned.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 provides live NHL game scores, game status, and results for a specific date range. The verb 'get' is implicit, and the resource (NHL scores) is explicitly named, distinguishing it from other sport-specific siblings without ambiguity.

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?

While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the focus on 'NHL' and the date range make the intended use obvious. It does not mislead, but it also does not explicitly say when to use this over the multi-sport tool, leaving minor room for inference.

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