euroleague_game_stats

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

Even with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description goes well beyond them. It explains the nested structure (player vs stats), defines 'valuation' as EuroLeague's PIR metric, and warns that 'timePlayed' is in seconds as a float (e.g., 1088.0 = 18:08), not a MM:SS string. It also explicitly states 'Auth: none needed,' covering a behavioral aspect not evident from 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 dense but every sentence carries useful information: the result structure, nesting, unit conventions, metric explanation, an example call, and auth requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with a clear 'Returns:' block. No fluff or 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 tool with a complex nested return object and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return structure, the meaning of specific fields, and the required inputs. It includes an example to illustrate correct invocation. This gives an agent everything needed to select and call 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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (season, gameCode, competition) clearly documented. The description adds a concrete example using actual values, but it does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. The example is helpful but not necessary for understanding what each parameter does.

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: 'Box score for one game: both teams' player lines plus team totals and coach.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like euroleague_game or euroleague_games by focusing on per-game detailed statistics. The return structure is fully specified, leaving no ambiguity about what is returned.

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 indicates the tool is for retrieving a box score for a specific game, and the example shows the required parameters. It implies use when you need detailed player and team stats, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other purposes (e.g., schedule or list of games). Thus, it provides clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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