sportsdataio_nhl_games_by_date

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

The description proactively warns that the return shape is unverified and approximate, which is important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. It also discloses the auth dependency (env key) and that the shape may not match live responses, adding transparency about potential discrepancies.

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 clear sections: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. While longer than minimal, every section earns its place, though the 'SHAPE FROM VENDOR DOCS' line and the following NOTE somewhat redundantly repeat the unverified nature of the shape.

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, the description covers all essential context: what it returns (with field list), how to call it (example), prerequisites (auth key), and a critical reliability caveat. It also points to an alternative for more detailed data, making the tool usable standalone without additional documentation.

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 fully describes the single `date` parameter with format and requirement. The description adds a concrete example value and notes the date is part of the URL path, but this provides marginal additional meaning beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns NHL games for a given date, including betting lines ('with the line'). It identifies the resource (NHL games), the filter (date), and the additional data (point spread/over-under), making it distinguishable from sibling NBA/MLB date-based tools and other NHL providers.

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 explicitly directs users to the keyless official `nhl` provider for deeper play-by-play and box scores, clearly delineating when to use this tool versus an alternative. It also provides an example call and auth key requirements, giving concrete usage context.

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