espn_site_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the tool as a read operation returning a JSON object but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or response structure. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 well-structured with the purpose first, then parameter handling, then usage boundaries. It is about 80 words and clear, though the list of covered data is lengthy and could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (many possible operations) and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of capabilities and references an external resource for operations. It lacks details on return format or error handling, but is fairly complete for a gateway tool.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that `operation` is the API operation, `path_params` must contain 'sport' and 'league' slugs and optional IDs, and `query_params` is optional. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though specifics like allowed slugs could be listed.

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 is a gateway to the ESPN site API for team, league, and related data, with a specific verb 'Gateway' and resource 'site.api.espn.com'. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by mentioning that athlete profiles/game-logs/splits should use 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by listing covered data (team detail, rosters, schedules, etc.) and when-not-to (athlete profiles/game-logs/splits) with alternative tool names. It also directs users to browse operations in a resource.

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