apisports_hockey_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the return shape is explicitly unverified and approximate, the user must supply their own API key, and the NHL provider alternative is noted as deeper/live (implying this provider may be less detailed). This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing reliability caveats and authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a return shape, a critical verification caveat, a concrete example, and an auth note—each sentence earns its place. It is concise without being terse, and the caveats are clearly separated. No irrelevant information is present.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a return shape (albeit tagged as approximate), an example, auth requirements, and a comparison with the NHL provider. This covers essential information for invoking the tool. However, it does not specify whether parameters are required (none are), how multiple parameters interact, or any pagination/limits, leaving some operational uncertainty.

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 covers all 4 parameters with brief descriptions (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'Team id.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds an example for the `date` parameter and mentions 'by date or league', but does not resolve ambiguity about parameter combinations (e.g., can `team` and `league` be combined with `date`? Does `season` require `league`?). Thus it adds some value but does not fully compensate for potential combination confusion.

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 states 'Ice-hockey games (NHL, KHL, SHL and others) by date or league' which is a specific verb (retrieve/list) + clear resource (ice-hockey games) + scope (by date or league). It also distinguishes the tool from the official NHL provider by noting it is 'deeper and live' for the NHL itself, helping differentiate among similar sports tools.

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 gives an explicit alternative for NHL data ('the keyless official `nhl` provider is deeper and live'), which serves as a when-not-to-use for NHL-specific queries. It also implies usage context via 'by date or league' and provides an example. However, it does not clarify when to use the `team` or `season` parameters or how they combine with date/league, leaving some usage ambiguity.

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