highlightly_nfl_highlights

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that the response shape is unverified from vendor docs and advising inspection of the actual payload. It also discloses the need for a personal API key, which is not in the schema or 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-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by response shape, caveat, example, and auth. Each section serves a purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes useful information, especially the vendor-doc caveat.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description provides an approximate return shape, pagination indicator, an example call, and auth requirements. The caveat about unverified shape is important for the agent to set expectations. It could improve by noting when no parameters are provided, but this is a reasonably complete description for a simple read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the full weight of parameter semantics. The description adds only an example using 'date', without elaborating on limit, matchId, or leagueId behavior beyond their schema descriptions. This meets the baseline but does not 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 identifies the resource ('American-football highlight clips') and indicates retrieval via 'Returns:'. It distinguishes the sport from sibling highlight tools like highlightly_soccer_highlights. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 query and notes the auth requirement, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not clarify whether certain parameters are preferred for common use cases (e.g., date vs matchId).

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