espn_game_summary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, so the description adds value by describing the dependency on a live event id and the shape of the returned data. It also states 'Auth: none needed,' which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then dependency explanation, return format, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only summary tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the dependency on espn_scoreboard, outlines the return structure, and notes auth requirements, sufficing despite lacking an explicit output schema.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds the note that `event` comes from espn_scoreboard, which slightly reinforces the schema, but overall it largely repeats 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 clearly states 'Full summary for one game' and enumerates specific components (box score, scoring plays, drives/play-by-play, leaders, win-probability and odds). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like espn_scoreboard, which lists games rather than providing detailed summaries.

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 explicitly instructs that `event` is an id from espn_scoreboard and explains why no example is provided ('it needs a live event id, so the doctor probes espn_scoreboard instead'). This gives clear usage context and points to the prerequisite tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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