get_game_boxscore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents (final score, team totals, player lines) and parameter format, which gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior as a read-only retrieval. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the nature of a boxscore query makes these less critical.

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 compact with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence defines the tool's output, and the arguments section clarifies both parameters. No unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, what each parameter means, and the intended scope ('one game'). The description is complete enough for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does so effectively: 'season' is explained with an example format ('E2025'), and 'game_code' is described as 'the game's numeric code within that season.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 the tool returns a 'Full boxscore for one game' and lists specific contents: 'final score, both team totals, and every player line.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_stats or get_team_stats, which focus on individual or team aggregates rather than a single game's complete boxscore.

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 clear context by specifying this is for 'one game,' implying it should be used when a full boxscore for a specific game is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the purpose makes usage obvious in context of the sibling tools.

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