espnfantasy_live_scoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the live-field population caveat, the return structure shape, and the auth behavior ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set'). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently packs return structure, a worked example, and auth notes without redundancy. Every sentence adds information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 read-only live-scoring tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the return format with nested fields, highlights the critical live-only behavior, provides a concrete example, and addresses authentication. The 5 parameters, 2 of which are required, are fully covered by the schema, so the description fills the gap with usage context.

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 does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only provides an example call showing game, seasonId, and leagueId. The 'view' parameter is noted as 'Leave as-is' in the schema, but the description doesn't clarify it further. This is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Live in-progress scoring for the current period' and elaborates on exactly what data is returned ('points so far and how many roster spots have yet to play'). It clearly distinguishes this live-scoring tool from siblings like espnfantasy_boxscore or espnfantasy_matchups by emphasizing 'Live' and 'in-progress'.

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 clearly implies when to use it: for in-progress scoring during the current period. It states the key timing caveat that 'Live fields only populate while pro games are in progress,' which guides the agent on when results will be meaningful. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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.