balldontlie_nfl_games

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the approximate, unverified return shape ('has NOT been verified against a live response') and the auth requirement (BALLDONTLIE_API_KEY). It also lists the specific fields the agent can expect. This is meaningful context not present in the structured 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return shape, a critical caveat, an example, and auth info. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. The structure (purpose → shape → note → example → auth) is logical and scannable.

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 the 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential return fields, provides a usage example, and transparently notes the shape is unverified. It lacks explicit pagination loop instructions, but the presence of 'meta.next_cursor' and the cursor parameter in the schema mitigate that gap. The auth note is also included.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing 'seasons' as an array of year strings, which clarifies usage. However, it doesn't explain interactions between filters (e.g., combining season and week) or add details about cursor pagination beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'NFL games by season, week or team,' which clearly identifies the resource (NFL games) and the main filtering dimensions. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' but the intent is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the sport, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar NFL tools from other providers.

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 example 'A season's games' and filter options imply typical usage, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like apisports_nfl_games or sportsdataio_nfl_scores. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche from the name alone.

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