espnfantasy_boxscore

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains auth requirements ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more'), provides the full return structure (important since there is no output schema), and warns that omitting scoringPeriodId yields season totals. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 and front-loaded: a clear purpose sentence, followed by a compact return type, an example, and an auth note. Every section earns its place, with no redundancy. The return type is dense but necessary given the lack of an output schema.

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 tool with no output schema and moderately complex parameters, the description covers all essential gaps: return shape, example invocation, auth behavior, and the critical requirement for scoringPeriodId. Annotations handle safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameter details. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing how the parameters map together (game, seasonId, leagueId, scoringPeriodId) and implicitly uses the default view. While it doesn't add new semantic explanations beyond the schema, the example helps agents understand typical usage and parameter relationships, justifying a score above baseline.

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 specifies what the tool does: 'Week box scores — each matchup with both lineups, per-player actual and projected points.' It also distinguishes from similar tools by calling it 'the start/sit post-mortem view,' which implies post-week analysis, differentiating it from live scoring or matchup summary tools. The return structure further clarifies the scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Week box scores' and 'post-mortem' indicate it is for after-the-fact review, and an example for Week 3 is provided. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (like live_scoring or matchup_score), so it falls short of a 5.

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