espn_site_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds useful context like 'Auth: none needed', return type (JSON object), and that operations are dynamic. It does not mention potential error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only gateway with strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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 yet information-dense, covering purpose, required inputs, coverage scope, alternatives, discovery mechanism, return type, and auth in a clear flow. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a generic gateway tool: how to discover operations, what path params are expected, and which sibling tools cover alternative needs. This makes the tool usable without additional resources.

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 description enriches the schema by explaining that `path_params` must include at least `sport` and `league` with slug examples (football/nfl, basketball/nba) and optional IDs like teamId/athleteId. It also reinforces the schema's `query_params` description, providing practical guidance beyond the property definitions.

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 identifies the tool as a gateway to the ESPN site API resource families, enumerating specific data types (team detail, rosters, schedules, injuries, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by directing athlete profiles/game-logs/splits to espn_web_call or espn_core_call.

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?

Provides concrete instructions on how to supply `operation`, `path_params` (with sport+league and id), and optional `query_params`. Explicitly names alternatives for different data needs (espn_web_call, espn_core_call) and directs users to browse the operations catalogue for valid operations.

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