sportsdataio_nba_games_by_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds valuable context: the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, advising the agent to inspect the actual payload, and it explains the auth key requirement. This goes beyond the structured hints.

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 with labels: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. Each section earns its place—the return field list is especially useful given the lack of an output schema. It is not overly verbose.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, this description covers all essential aspects: what it does, the approximate return object, an example call, authentication requirements, and a warning about unverified data. The caveat about the vendor docs is a significant additional detail that helps an agent avoid misinterpreting 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?

The only parameter, 'date', is fully described in the schema with format and required status, giving 100% coverage. The description's example JSON reinforces the format but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope: 'NBA games on a date, with the closing spread and total.' The 'Returns:' block confirms it is a retrieval operation with a specific payload. The sport-specific wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsdataio_nhl_games_by_date.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned (e.g., nba_scoreboard_today or balldontlie_nba_games). The example shows how to pass the date and the date format note is useful, but usage context is implied rather than stated.

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