nba_playbyplay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by describing the return structure, the CDN source, and that no authentication is needed. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 and concise: a clear definition, a returns object, a concrete example, and auth note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It explains the return format with nested fields, provides a usage example, and mentions authentication requirements. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents the single parameter gameId with format and required status. The description supplements this by stating where to obtain the gameId from other NBA tools, which adds practical semantic value beyond the schema.

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 provides an 'Event-level play-by-play log for one game' with every action including clock, score, player, and description. It is specific about the resource and scope, and references where to obtain the gameId, which distinguishes it from schedule/scoreboard tools. However, it does not explicitly compare against nba_boxscore, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'gameId from nba_scoreboard_today / nba_schedule', giving clear guidance on how to obtain the required parameter. This implies the tool is for retrieving play-by-play for a known game. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is well-established by the source reference.

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