apisports_rugby_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 behavioral context: the return shape is disclosed with field names, but explicitly warned as 'from the vendor's documentation' and 'NOT been verified against a live response,' advising to inspect actual payload. It also discloses the auth requirement (API_SPORTS_KEY) and provides an example payload shape. No contradictions with annotations.

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 appropriately structured with sections: summary, return shape, NRL note, warning, example, and auth. It is somewhat lengthy but every section earns its place, especially given the important caveat about unverified response shape. The first sentence is a clear front-loaded purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a return shape, a usage example, auth instructions, and a caution about unverified data. It does not describe pagination, sorting, or detailed error behavior, but for a simple read-only query tool with 4 optional parameters, the coverage is solid. The warning about unverified shape is a notable transparency addition.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces usage of 'date' and 'league' via the phrase 'by date or league' and a date example, but adds little for 'team' or 'season' beyond the schema's terse descriptions. It does not clarify how parameters combine or whether they are mutually exclusive.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves rugby games by date or league, listing specific competitions (Six Nations, Super Rugby, NRL, Premiership). It also distinguishes itself with 'The catalogue's only rugby-union coverage,' making it unique among siblings. The action is implicit but unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context: 'The catalogue's only rugby-union coverage' implies when to use it. It explicitly advises using the 'keyless nrl provider' for NRL-specific needs, which is a when-not-to-use guidance. It also includes a concrete example, but does not exhaustively enumerate alternatives or state exact conditions for choosing between this and similar sports tools.

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