nhl_boxscore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the full return structure, an example request, and 'Auth: none needed.' It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect. Not a 5 because it lacks error/edge case handling details, but annotations lower the bar.

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: a concise purpose sentence, a detailed but formatted Returns block, an example with request body, and an auth note. Each section earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the return payload.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape including both team lineups and player-level stats. It also provides an example and auth requirements. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete: an agent can confidently invoke it and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains gameId as the NHL game id from nhl_schedule/nhl_scores and notes it's part of the URL path. The description adds an example gameId value, but that is a minor addition. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it returns the 'Full box score for one game' with specific stat categories (goals, assists, plus-minus, shots, hits, blocks, time on ice). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like nhl_scores (summary scores) and nhl_game_landing (likely a broader game view).

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 parameter description instructs that gameId comes from nhl_schedule / nhl_scores, implying a prerequisite workflow. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear: this tool is for detailed box score data for a single game, and it indicates a dependency on other tools for obtaining the ID.

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