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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the data source, UTC time handling, accuracy relationship to the MLB Stats API, and a precise pricing model with x402 payment rails and no charge for failed calls. These are meaningful operational details not available in the 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 front-loaded with purpose and content, then efficiently adds timezone, source, accuracy, and pricing details. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context without waste.

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, open-world scoreboard tool with an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description provides everything needed to select and invoke it: scope, date behavior, timezone, source, accuracy note, and cost.

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 single date parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including YYYY-MM-DD format and yesterday-UTC default. The description reinforces the one-date usage but does not add syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific resource and scope: ESPN MLB scoreboard for one date, including games, teams, score, status, and venue. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling ESPN scoreboards for other leagues and from non-scoreboard MLB tools.

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 gives clear usage context by specifying a one-date MLB scoreboard query and noting that the date defaults to yesterday UTC. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as dev_mlb_statsapi or dev_mlb_stats, so it falls short of a 5.

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