mysportsfeeds_games

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

The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: a detailed return shape, a crucial note about the nested schedule/score structure, an explicit warning that the shape is unverified and approximate, and an authentication requirement. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations and does not contradict them.

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 a clear purpose sentence, a detailed return-shape block, important notes about structure and verification, an example, and an auth line. While the return shape block is lengthy, every sentence earns its place, and the information is dense without redundancy.

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 compensates by providing a full return shape, a caveat about unverified vendor documentation, an example invocation, and auth guidance. This gives an agent nearly all the context needed to safely and correctly invoke the tool, including a warning to inspect the live payload.

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 gives comprehensive descriptions for all 5 parameters, including enums, URL path details, and formats for league/season. The description's example only repeats what the schema states and adds no new semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Games for a season in one league, with scores and venue,' which identifies the resource (games), the scope (season and league), and key data fields. This is distinct from sibling tools like mysportsfeeds_boxscore (single game) or mysportsfeeds_standings, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage for season-level game data with an example ('This NFL season's games') and notes authentication, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as mysportsfeeds_boxscore or mysportsfeeds_standings. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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