espnfantasy_scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about authentication (works without a key; cookie unlocks more) and the return structure, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Well-structured with a one-line summary, Returns block, Example, and Auth note. Every section earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by providing a return shape and example. It covers authentication and main parameters. It could further clarify what 'pro-game state' includes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example with parameter values and clarifies the meaning of scoringPeriodId ('omit for the current one' is in schema, but the example reinforces it). This adds useful context beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it is a scoreboard for a scoring period, providing matchup totals and pro-game state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like espnfantasy_matchups or espnfantasy_boxscore by focusing on the scoreboard view with aggregate totals.

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?

Provides clear context (scoring period scoreboard) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like espnfantasy_matchups or espnfantasy_boxscore. The example implies usage for 'this week's scoreboard' but does not address exclusions or sibling distinctions.

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