espn_web_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that auth is not needed, that it returns a JSON object, and specific operation details. It doesn't describe pagination or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 brief and structured with clear sections (description, parameter hints, return type, auth). Every sentence provides useful information 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?

For a multi-operation gateway with no output schema, it names the API host, lists operation categories, specifies parameter needs, states return type and auth. The pointer to the catalogue resource fills the gap for exhaustive operation details. Acceptable completeness, though it could mention pagination or error behavior.

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 input schema already describes the three generic parameters and references the catalogue. The description adds operation-specific parameter requirements (query/limit for search; sport/league/athleteId for athlete ops), which is valuable beyond the generic schema.

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 web API, enumerating specific operations (site-wide search, common/v3 athlete views, statistics-by-athlete) and the host endpoint. This differentiates it from sibling gateways like espn_site_call by naming the specific host and operation set.

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 states that `search` requires only query_params with {query, limit} and athlete_* ops require path_params with {sport, league, athleteId}, plus instructs browsing the espn://web/operations resource for valid operations. This provides clear operation-selection guidance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools for when not to use it.

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