espn_web_call

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Returns: JSON object' but does not disclose whether operations are read-only, destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. For a gateway tool, transparency is lacking.

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?

Description is reasonably concise and well-structured. It front-loads purpose, then provides parameter usage hints. Could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not fully cover all possible operations (only search and athlete views). It directs to browse a resource for more, which is incomplete. For a complex tool with many sub-operations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning: explains how 'search' uses query_params with fields like query and limit, and athlete_* ops use path_params with sport, league, athleteId. This clarifies usage beyond the generic schema 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?

Description clearly identifies tool as gateway to ESPN web API and lists key operations (search, athlete views). Distinguishable from sibling tools focused on specific endpoints like scoreboard or standings. However, not all operations are enumerated, relying on 'Browse the resource' which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more specific ESPN tools like espn_scoreboard or espn_standings. Lacks 'when-not' or alternative mentions. The only hint is 'Browse the resource' which is insufficient for decision-making.

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