mysportsfeeds_player_gamelogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable caveats: the return shape comes from vendor docs and is unverified, and stats groups differ by sport. These disclosures go beyond the annotations and inform the agent that fields may not be reliable, which is critical for correct usage.

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-organized and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clearly formatted return shape, a necessary caveat about unverified docs, a practical example, and an auth note. Every section earns its place: the return shape is essential given no output schema, the caveat mitigates risk, and the example aids invocation. No filler or 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?

For a tool with no output schema and five parameters, the description provides substantial context: a return shape (albeit unverified), a usage example, auth requirements, and sport-specific stats note. However, it does not explain whether parameters like team and player can be combined, or how date filtering interacts with season, and pagination is not mentioned. These gaps are offset by the example and the caveat, making it sufficiently complete for basic invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this with a concrete example showing league='nba', season='current', and team=['LAL'], illustrating how to filter by team. It also clarifies that league and season are part of the URL path, matching the schema descriptions, but the example adds practical usage context.

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 'Per-game statistics for players across a season', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mysportsfeeds_boxscore and mysportsfeeds_games by focusing on season-wide per-game player logs. The additional return shape and example reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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 retrieving player game logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'the cleanest surface this API has' hints at superiority, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion of other mysportsfeeds tools. An example call is provided, but no guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling to choose instead.

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