isportsapi_basketball_schedule

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable transparency beyond annotations: it warns that the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, and it explicitly mentions the required ISPORTS_API_KEY auth. No contradictions with 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 return shape, unverified note, example, and auth. Each component earns its place, though it's slightly longer than necessary for such a simple tool.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a return shape (with caveat), an example, and auth context. It doesn't explain behavior when both parameters are omitted, but the openWorldHint annotation partially covers that gap.

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 documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description carries minimal burden. It adds an example date value ('2024-01-15') but no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 (basketball fixtures and results) and scope (by date), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List.' It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling basketball schedule tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 clear context by showing an example for a day's games and noting the optional leagueId restriction. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or state exclusions, so it misses the explicit guidance required for a 5.

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