nba_scoreboard_today

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the live CDN source, the return structure, a concrete example, and 'Auth: none needed' – all beyond what annotations provide, 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 concise: a clear opening sentence, a return type, an example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose and how to use the results) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by providing the return shape, example, auth requirement, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Input schema is empty, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description further clarifies that no parameters are required and provides the return structure and example, exceeding the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 today's games from the live CDN scoreboard, including matchups, scores, period/clock state, and game IDs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the fastest way to get gameIds for nba_boxscore/nba_playbyplay.

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 names nba_boxscore and nba_playbyplay as consumers of the gameId, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. The 'today' scope also differentiates it from schedule or historical tools, and the reference to 'fastest way' indicates a preferred choice for this specific purpose.

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