espn_scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool is known to be safe and non-mutating. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the return structure, that no auth is needed, and that it can operate on today's or a specified date. No contradictions found.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a return shape, a short example, and an auth note. Every part earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return structure and gives an example. It also mentions the key input parameters and their slug format. For a relatively simple scoreboard tool, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining that sport and league are slugs (with examples like football/nfl) and provides a concrete usage example. This adds useful clarity without overdoing it.

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 the tool returns a scoreboard for one league with status, clock, score, and event IDs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the fastest way to get event IDs needed by espn_game_summary / espn_core_call, making it specifically actionable.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get event IDs for a league, especially before calling espn_game_summary or espn_core_call. It also clarifies the slug format for sport and league and includes an example, which helps an agent decide when this is appropriate.

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