highlightly_basketball_highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable caveats beyond annotations: the return shape is 'from vendor docs' and unverified, advising to 'inspect the actual payload before relying on a field name'. It also discloses the auth requirement (HIGHLIGHTLY_API_KEY), which is not in 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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a return shape, a caveat about shape reliability, an example, and auth note. Each part earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded. The caveat is slightly verbose but necessary for transparency.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a return shape (even if marked approximate), an example call, and auth requirements. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema covering all parameters, this is reasonably complete. It could mention pagination behavior, but the return shape includes 'pagination', and the openWorldHint suggests the response may vary.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (date, limit, matchId, leagueId), giving 100% coverage. The description adds an example for 'date' but does not explain the semantics of limit, matchId, or leagueId beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 states the tool returns 'Basketball highlight clips (NBA, EuroLeague and others)', specifying both the resource (highlight clips) and the domain (basketball). This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other sports like soccer, NFL, baseball, and hockey, which share the 'highlightly_' prefix.

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 provides an example using the 'date' parameter and notes the need for an API key, implying when the tool might be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or how to choose between parameters like matchId versus leagueId. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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