sports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about data freshness, whether results are live or cached, rate limits, or the shape of the response. It discloses only the valid input domains (leagues, fn values).

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the enumerated values tucked into a parenthetical. No filler, though the packed parenthetical makes it slightly harder to scan than a structured breakdown.

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 3-parameter read tool with a required league, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input contract adequately but omits what a response contains, whether team filtering applies to standings as well as schedules, and any data-source or freshness context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds value by enumerating the full set of nine accepted league codes and the two fn values, whereas the schema only samples 'e.g. nba, epl, nfl'. This materially reduces the chance of an invalid league value being passed.

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 gives a specific verb ('look up') and resources ('sports schedules and standings'), plus the exact league codes and query types, which rescues the otherwise-vague tool name 'sports'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like web-search or finance, but the resource is unambiguous once read.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-search or open-page, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the enumerated leagues and fn values, leaving the agent to guess why it should not simply search the web for a score.

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