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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context about what data the result carries, but says nothing about behavior for the list_all case (single result vs. many) or any freshness/latency characteristics.

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 sentence that leads with the resource and its payload, then closes with the exclusion. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover safety. The one meaningful gap is the list_all parameter, which switches the tool from a single game to every finished game in the window — a behavioral difference the description's singular framing does not acknowledge.

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 all three parameters (game, text, list_all) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and notably never mentions the list_all mode that changes the shape of the response.

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 names a specific resource (a finished game) and enumerates its payload: final score, closing spread and total, earliest recorded line, and a page link. It clearly bounds scope with 'Never an upcoming game,' which implicitly separates it from siblings like slate and game_lines, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

'Never an upcoming game' is a genuine negative condition that implies the split with upcoming-game siblings, but no alternative tool is named and no positive trigger ('use this when the reader asks about a game that already happened') is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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