Games Get League Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds the useful quirk that an invalid date triggers an error with no request issued and points at the replacement tool. It does not describe the shape or volume of the returned event list, but with annotations and a fully documented schema the bar is lower.

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 waste, with the capability first and the negative constraint plus redirect second. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, the key constraint, and the fallback. It stops short of indicating what an 'event' object contains, which leaves a small gap absent an output schema.

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 100%, so the dates parameter's rejection semantics are already documented verbatim in the schema. The description's date statement largely repeats the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (the league's current scheduled events), and explicitly delimits scope against games_get_scoreboard, a real sibling. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when this tool is NOT appropriate ('date filtering is not supported here') and names the exact alternative plus the mechanism ('use games_get_scoreboard with date'). The routing rule is unambiguous.

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