fanaticslive_instant_rips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the data is public and sourced from Fanatics Live's GraphQL API, and notes the conditional presence of current_break. But it does not mention error behavior, response shape, or any rate limits. It is adequate but lacks depth for a read operation without annotation backing.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and avoids verbosity, though the second sentence is slightly redundant (repeats 'current break' and 'digital-instant-rip state'). Overall well-structured.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description explains what it returns, when it may omit data, and the data source. It gives enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it does not enumerate the exact fields of the response beyond 'spot claim/rip progress' and 'currently revealing item.' That is sufficient for this simple 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%: the id parameter is described in the schema as 'Fanatics Live show id, the same id GET /fanaticslive/show/{id} takes,' which is sufficient. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get a Fanatics Live show's current instant-rip state.' It specifies the verb, resource, and provides detail on what the returned state includes (spot claim/rip progress and currently revealing item), which distinguishes it from the sibling fanaticslive_show that likely returns general show data.

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?

Usage context is clear: it returns the instant-rip state only when a rip is actively in progress, and current_break is omitted otherwise. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of fanaticslive_show or other Fanatics tools, so it lacks an explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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