cfbd_advanced_box_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so those are covered. The description adds valuable transparency by disclosing that the return shape is 'from vendor docs' and 'NOT been verified against a live response,' as well as the auth requirement and PPA definition. This helps the agent set expectations and inspect the actual payload.

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-sentence summary, followed by the return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. Each section serves a purpose and the structure is logical, though the caveat note is somewhat verbose.

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 details the return structure and warns it is unverified. It also covers authentication and provides an example. This is a reasonably complete picture for a single-parameter tool, though it doesn't discuss error modes or edge cases.

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% and already explains that 'id' is a query parameter from cfbd_games. The description reinforces this with an example value, but it doesn't add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema 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 clearly states 'Advanced box score for one game' and lists the key metrics (success rate, explosiveness, PPA, field position), which identifies the tool's purpose and scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling CFBD tools, but the 'one game' constraint distinguishes it from list-style tools like cfbd_games.

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 implies usage via 'one game' and provides an example call, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or where to obtain the required game ID. The schema description covers the ID source, yet the tool description itself lacks that contextual guidance.

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