espn_game_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return structure but does not mention side effects, authorization, rate limits, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its data output.

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 relatively concise and well-structured, with a clear summary, parameter hint, and return format. However, the explanatory sentence about the lack of an example could be trimmed without loss of meaning.

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?

The description provides a helpful return structure for a complex tool, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it fails to explain the 'sport' and 'league' parameters, leaving the tool incomplete for users unfamiliar with ESPN's API conventions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining all parameters. It only mentions 'event' briefly, leaving 'sport' and 'league' undefined. Users are left to guess their format and purpose, which is insufficient for a three-parameter tool.

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 it provides a 'full summary for one game' and lists specific components (box score, scoring plays, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like espn_scoreboard by noting that the event parameter comes from there.

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 indicates the event ID should come from espn_scoreboard, providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar purposes.

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