Games Get Scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content-level context ('live scores', probable starters, TV broadcasts) but says nothing about freshness, polling cadence, or result volume — the traits that actually matter for a live-score endpoint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the filter set. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description carries the full burden. It covers most parameters and the returned fields, but omits the limit/pagination behavior and any sibling differentiation, which an agent needs before calling a default-limited list endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives the date format (YYYYMMDD), explains week, season type, and what 'group' means (Top 25 groups). It omits the limit parameter and its default of 50, leaving one of seven parameters unexplained.

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 (live scores/scoreboard) and enumerates the returned content — scores, status, periods/innings, clocks/outs, broadcasts, probable starters. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like games_get_scoreboard_header or games_get_game_summary, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 filter list (date, week, season type, Top 25 groups) implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. An agent comparing it against games_get_scoreboard_header gets no routing guidance.

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