List game broadcast links

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

Beyond annotations that state read-only/idempotent, the description adds key behavioral quirks: videoLengthSeconds is always 0 and title is the team name, explicitly saying this is expected not missing data. It also clarifies the link type (NFHS Network vs hosted clips), which is valuable context.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—the first states what it lists, the second details expected data quirks. No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the nature of the results, and the safety (read-only). It even mentions output fields like videoLengthSeconds and title, which provides enough context for an agent to interpret results 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't attempt to invent parameter guidance, which 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 states 'Games with a broadcast link' and specifies it lists NFHS Network links, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mpaz_list_teams or mpaz_get_scores. The title 'List game broadcast links' aligns precisely with the verb+resource structure.

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 for when to use the tool—when looking for broadcast links—and notes the type of content (NFHS Network links). However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion cases, though sibling names make the contrast implicit.

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