espn_game_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool is credential-free and read-only, which is good, but it does not disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with invalid event IDs. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence, and provides essential information in a few sentences without unnecessary details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose (purpose, data source, parameter guidance, event ID source).

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return content (matchup, betting odds, boxscore stat totals). It also explains how to obtain the required event ID. While it could be more explicit about the output structure, it provides sufficient context for a tool with three straightforward parameters.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by listing the enum values for sport and league and noting that league must be valid for the chosen sport and that event ID comes from the scoreboard endpoint. This extra guidance helps the agent select correct values.

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 returns a single game's summary including matchup, betting odds, and boxscore stat totals. It specifies the data source and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like espn_scoreboard (which returns multiple games) by focusing on one game.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on how to get the event ID (from scoreboard endpoint) and explains the enum constraints for sport and league. It implicitly suggests when to use this tool versus the scoreboard or other endpoints, though it does not explicitly list when not to use.

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