mysportsfeeds_boxscore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, the agent should inspect the actual payload, and the tool requires an API key in MYSPORTSFEEDS_API_KEY. No contradiction 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 with clear sections: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. It is slightly long due to the detailed return shape, but every section carries necessary information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 provides a detailed return shape approximation, a usage example, auth requirements, and a critical caveat about the unverified payload. It doesn't cover season format details or playerstats value options, but those are partially in the schema, and the overall picture is solid.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the convenient game id form '20240115-LAL-BOS' and including a full example mapping league, season, and game. It doesn't add detail for playerstats, but the schema already describes 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 opening line 'Full box score for one game, team and player level' is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like mysportsfeeds_games, mysportsfeeds_player_gamelogs, and other league-specific boxscore tools.

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 states the tool is for a single game's box score and provides a concrete usage example. It gives guidance on the game id format (date-team string), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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