apisports_nfl_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the response shape is unverified from vendor docs and should be treated as approximate, the identity is wrapped under `game`, and an API key is required. This is a meaningful disclosure of uncertainty and prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a code-block response shape, relevant caveats, an example, and auth note. Each section earns its place; while somewhat long, it is well-structured and avoids redundancies.

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 detailed (though unverified) response shape, an example query, and explicit caveats plus auth requirements. It lacks pagination and error details, but the core information an agent needs to invoke and parse this tool is present.

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%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds a concrete example ({"league": 1, "season": 2023}) demonstrating how to filter for a week of NFL games, which clarifies the use of league and season together beyond the basic field 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 fetches American-football games (NFL, NCAA) by date, season, or team. The resource and verb are explicit, and it naturally distinguishes from soccer or basketball siblings by naming the sport and 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?

There is an implied usage context (NFL/NCAA games) and a helpful example query, but no explicit comparison to alternative NFL/NCAA data sources like balldontlie_nfl_games or sportsdataio_nfl_scores. The note about the basketball/hockey hosts only addresses response shape, not when to choose this tool.

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