fanaticslive_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does useful work: 'Browse' and 'Returns' signal read-only behavior, 'Public data' implies no auth requirements, and 'currently listed' plus the field list clarify what the caller will receive. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or no-results behavior, but it is reasonably transparent for a simple listing tool.

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 only three sentences and each one earns its place: scope, returned data fields, and data provenance. It avoids filler and does not restate schema content.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity browse tool, the description gives the caller the necessary context: the input dimension, the returned fields, and the public nature of the data. Minor gaps like pagination and error behavior remain, but the field list partially compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is fully defined as a string enum with a reference to GET /fanaticslive/leagues for the full league list. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 first sentence names the exact resource and scope: 'Fanatics Live shows by league.' The second sentence further specifies that this is a list of live and upcoming shows with concrete returned fields, distinguishing it clearly from fanaticslive_show (single show) and fanaticslive_leagues (list of leagues).

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 makes the intended call context evident: browse current live/upcoming shows for a given league. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use this one, such as using fanaticslive_show for a single show or fanaticslive_leagues to enumerate leagues.

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