nbl_player_boxscores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, lowering the burden. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the return structure, providing useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits or pagination, which are common behavior details.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. It includes a return format example and auth note, each earning its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple with clear annotations and schema. The description explains the output shape and scope, but lacks details on what 'period' means or how seasonType affects results. Given the absence of an output schema, the included return structure is helpful, but a bit more context on the period field would make it fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the year offset explanation and playerId source. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, no additional description is necessary.

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 function: 'Game-by-game box scores for one player across a season' with specific stats listed (points, rebounds, assists, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'The score-series / game-log source', which differentiates it from aggregate stats tools like nbl_player_stats.

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 when to use this tool ('game-log source', 'per match' granularity) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It provides enough context for an agent to infer that this is for per-game data rather than season totals, but lacks a direct 'use this instead of X' statement.

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