apisports_volleyball_games

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the critical semantic trap (scores is sets won, not points), warning that the return shape is unverified from vendor docs, and stating auth requirements. This is exceptional context that prevents misuse.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (Returns, NOTE, Example, Auth). Every sentence adds value, including the trap warning and the vendor-verification caveat. Front-loaded with the most important usage information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully compensates by providing the return shape, field meanings, the sets-vs-points trap, and an authentication requirement. It also flags the unverified nature, which is crucial for an agent. Complete for a read-only sports data 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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds a usage example and mentions 'by date or league' but does not elaborate on team or season beyond schema. 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?

States clearly it returns volleyball games, specifying leagues (Italian SuperLega, Polish PlusLiga, CEV) and the filtering dimensions (by date or league). This distinguishes it from sibling apisports_* tools for other sports.

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?

Provides context: use for volleyball games by date or league, with a concrete example for date. Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the sport-specific scope is obvious given siblings. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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