highlightly_hockey_highlights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value beyond these by disclosing the unverified response shape and the need for a personal HIGHLIGHTLY_API_KEY. It also warns that the returned structure is approximate and should be inspected. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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: purpose statement, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note are each distinct and logically ordered. It is concise overall, though the vendor-docs caveat is a bit wordy. Every section earns its place, keeping it within a reasonable length.

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 with key fields, a note about verification, an example call, and authentication requirements. It covers the essential information needed to select and invoke the tool, though it could briefly mention that it is hockey-specific or that pagination behavior is not detailed. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (e.g., date as YYYY-MM-DD, limit as 'Page size'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds a usage example for 'date' but does not enrich the meaning of matchId or leagueId beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Ice-hockey highlight clips,' which clearly identifies the tool's domain and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like highlightly_soccer_highlights and highlightly_basketball_highlights by specifying the sport. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' relying on the noun phrase to imply the action.

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 a concrete example ('A day's hockey highlights' with a date parameter) that implies typical usage, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of sibling highlightly tools or exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implied.

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