afl_broadcast_match_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by specifying the return format ({pageInfo, content:[...]}) and stating 'Auth: none needed.' The 'Also answers' line is confusing, but it does not contradict the annotations or claim side effects.

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 mostly concise with a clear purpose, return format, and auth note. However, the final line 'Also answers this: espn_core_call, pl_broadcasting_events, pl_broadcast_match_events' is unnecessary and confusing, undermining the structure and wasting space. It detracts from an otherwise efficient description.

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 simple read-only tool with a full schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential return structure and auth requirement. However, it does not situate the tool among its many siblings or clarify the cryptic 'Also answers' note. It is adequate but leaves gaps around positioning and edge-case behavior (e.g., pagination semantics beyond pageSize).

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (round, pageSize, compseason) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond reaffirming that events are scoped to compseason and round, which mirrors the required fields. This is a baseline-3 scenario where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 broadcasts events scoped to a (compseason, round), which matches the tool's name and distinguishes it from single-event tools like afl_broadcast_event_get. However, it could be more explicit about the type of events (e.g., 'match events') and does not fully differentiate from other broadcast-related siblings like afl_broadcast_events.

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 offers no clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The line 'Also answers this: espn_core_call, pl_broadcasting_events, pl_broadcast_match_events' is cryptic and does not explain usage context, preconditions, or exclusions. It fails to help an agent choose this tool over similar ones.

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