nhl_game_landing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing the response structure (including nested scoring and penalties arrays) and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed', which helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 front-loaded: first a one-line purpose, then a clear return schema, then a concrete example, then authentication note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the formatting with bullet-like schema breaks makes it easy to scan.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by providing a detailed return object structure and an example. It is not fully complete—it does not note whether the tool works strictly for completed games or live games, nor any error conditions—but it gives sufficient context for a typical AI agent to invoke the tool 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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single required gameId parameter, describing it as an NHL game id required as part of the URL path. The description adds an example value but does not introduce semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a game landing page with scoring summary by period, three stars, penalties, and team game stats. It distinguishes its content scope but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like nhl_boxscore, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nhl_boxscore or nhl_scores. It gives an example call and mentions auth requirements, but does not specify prerequisites, appropriate game states (e.g., live vs completed), or when a different tool would be more suitable.

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