espn_scoreboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is credential-free and returns specific data types (scores, schedule, status, odds). However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond being public.

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 a single concise paragraph covering all key points without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for enums), but it efficiently conveys purpose and parameter details.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states the return data (scores, schedule, status, odds). However, it omits details like response structure, field names, or possible empty results, which would improve completeness for a 5-parameter tool.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the season type enum values and providing examples for dates. It also lists the sport and league enums explicitly, which is helpful beyond the schema's brief property descriptions.

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 games with scores, schedule, status, and odds for a specified sport and league. It specifies the source (ESPN credential-free public JSON) and enumerates the sports and league enums, making it distinct from sibling tools like espn_team or espn_game_summary.

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 details on parameter constraints (e.g., league must be valid for sport, seasontype enums) and notes that week is for football leagues. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like espn_game_summary or espn_standings.

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