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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the US Pacific league-date default and the id-passthrough contract to downstream tools. It does not mention pagination behavior, though the cursor param hints at it.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is returned before the default behavior and the cross-tool handoff. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no-output-schema list tool, it states the returned shape and the id contract, which is the critical missing piece. Only pagination expectations and the relationship to aura_live_games are unaddressed, which are minor for a filtered list.

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 67%, and the description compensates where it matters: the date default is restated with the timezone nuance ('US Pacific league date'), and team/sport/status filters are described in prose. cursor and pageSize semantics are left entirely to the schema, but those are already documented there.

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 ('Games for one day') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (teams, start time, status, score). This clearly separates it from game-detail siblings like aura_get_game or aura_boxscore.

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 explicit operating guidance: omit date for today, use filters for sport/status/team, and pass returned ids to aura_game_markets for odds. It doesn't explicitly contrast with aura_live_games, which is a near-neighbor for in-progress scores, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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