nba_boxscore

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds useful non-obvious details: the data comes from the CDN, the response shape (game/homeTeam/awayTeam/players), and that no auth is needed. There is no contradiction with the 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 compact and well-structured: purpose, return shape, example, and auth. Every sentence earns its place, and the example is immediately useful for invocation.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema. The description provides the return structure, an example, auth requirements, and the upstream source for gameId—enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further documentation.

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 schema already covers gameId 100% with type, format, example, source, and URL-path note. The description only restates the source and adds an example, providing no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 identifies the resource (box score for one NBA game) and scope (per-player and per-team stat lines, by period), distinguishing it from scoreboard/schedule/play-by-play siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets,' but 'Live/final box score for one game' is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states that gameId comes from nba_scoreboard_today or nba_schedule, providing a clear upstream dependency and retrieval context. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the 'box score' scope and live/final framing give sufficient situational guidance.

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