scoreboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the default behavior (defaults to today) and the date format, but it does not describe the return structure, edge cases like future/empty dates, or timezone handling. For a low-complexity read tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first states the purpose and default, the second documents the parameter format. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns at a high level, the default behavior, and the required date format. Minor gaps like timezone handling or behavior for invalid dates exist, but they are not critical for correct invocation.

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, and it does. It explicitly documents that game_date must be formatted as 'YYYY-MM-DD' and clarifies that omitting it defaults to today. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only declares it as a string with an empty default.

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 the resource ('games and scores') and the controlling parameter (a date, defaulting to today). It is clear and specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like find_player or list_teams, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, game_boxscore, and uses a noun phrase rather than a strong verb.

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 implies when to use the tool — to retrieve games and scores for a date, defaulting to today — but provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative tools. An agent can infer usage but is not told when not to use it or which sibling covers other cases (e.g., game_boxscore for a single game's details).

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