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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavioral context by noting it works for both completed and in-progress games and by describing the shape of the content. It does not say what happens when a game has no stats yet or when sport/league mismatch, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then preference cues, then input sourcing, then slug reference. The trailing league enumeration is long but is genuinely load-bearing reference data; only minor trimming would be possible without losing utility.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return contents and the live-game caveat. It is nearly complete for a 3-param read tool; a note on behavior for invalid event_ids or games with no stats would close the last gap.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by supplying the sport/league slug pairings an agent would otherwise have to guess ('football/nfl', 'soccer/eng.1', etc.) and by pointing at get_scoreboard's 'id' field as the source of event_id. This is real semantic value beyond the terse schema examples.

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 a specific verb/resource ('A completed or in-progress game's box score') and enumerates exactly what is returned: per-player stats by team, scoring plays in order, and game leaders. It also clearly separates itself from get_scoreboard and get_team_schedule, which are positioned as sources for the event_id rather than substitutes.

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?

Explicitly says 'PREFER for' followed by concrete user phrasings ('box score for <game>', 'who scored in <game>'), and names the upstream tools to call first for the required event_id. An agent knows both when to select this tool and how to prepare its inputs.

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