nba_daily_lineups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by identifying the data source (stats.nba.com JS feed), noting the return shape with an example, and warning that the feed shape varies. It also explicitly states 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover rate limits or deeper quirks.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by data format, return shape, example, and auth. Each sentence contributes useful information. Minor redundancy exists between the date format in the first paragraph and the example, but overall it is well-structured and economical.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the data source, the query parameter, the return shape (with a caveat that it varies), an example, and authentication requirements. It could be slightly clearer about the difference between 'projected' and 'confirmed' lineups, but this is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'date' parameter format and requirement. The description repeats the format (YYYYMMDD) and gives an example, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Projected/confirmed starting lineups for a date's games.' It distinguishes this from sibling NBA tools like nba_scoreboard_today or nba_boxscore by focusing specifically on lineups.

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 for when to use the tool: for a given date's starting lineups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it does not earn a 5, but the usage scenario is unambiguous.

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