nhl_scores

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already establish safety, and the description adds context beyond them: 'Auth: none needed' and a full return payload layout including gameState, clock, and period fields. This sets realistic expectations for a live read operation without contradicting the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the auth note and example are compact. The lengthy return-type block is verbose but earns its place because there is no output schema, giving the agent a precise picture of the response structure.

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 compensates by fully spelling out the return shape (currentDate, games, teams, scores, clock, period, goals, gameWeek), plus auth and example usage. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, this is nearly complete; only minor edge behavior (e.g., dates with no games) is left implicit.

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 schema already fully documents the date parameter ('YYYY-MM-DD, or 'now' for today') with 100% coverage, so the description's {'date': 'now'} example merely reinforces the default. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Live scoreboard' and precisely scopes the tool: every game on a date with current score, clock, and period. This distinguishes it from sibling NHL tools like nhl_schedule and nhl_boxscore, which cover scheduling and single-game details rather than a date-based live scoreboard.

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 use case (fetch a date's scoreboard) is clear and supported by the 'Today's scores' example, but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. An agent must infer from sibling names (e.g., nhl_schedule, nhl_boxscore) when another tool would be more appropriate.

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