espn_scoreboard

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

The description discloses that it returns games for a date with live scores and a specific JSON structure. Without annotations, it carries the full burden but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It provides basic behavioral info but is not comprehensive.

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 very concise (four sentences) with no unnecessary information. It front-loads the purpose and includes an example, making it efficient and easy to read.

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 tool's straightforward nature and the given parameters, the description provides a sample return structure, explains key parameters, and gives an example. It lacks details on pagination, limits, or advanced usage, but is largely sufficient for typical use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains sport and league as slugs with examples, and implies dates parameter format. However, week and seasontype parameters are not described, leaving gaps for a user.

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's purpose: providing a scoreboard for one league with games, status, clock, live scores, and event IDs. It explicitly notes that it is the fastest way to get event IDs needed by other tools, differentiating its value.

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 gives examples of sport/league slugs (football/nfl, basketball/nba) and implies that dates are optional (today's or a given date's). It mentions it's the fastest way to get event IDs, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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