Games Get Scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — that it returns game event IDs and includes live status, clocks/outs, broadcasts, and probable starters — but says nothing about pagination limits, failure behavior, or rate limits beyond what the schema's date field notes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return payload, followed by filtering and supported sports. Dense but largely free of redundancy; the sports enumeration earns its place by scoping coverage.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and 43% schema coverage, the description does list the returned payload well enough that an agent understands the response shape. But it leaves the undocumented week/season_type/group parameters ambiguous (valid ranges, numbering, allowed values) and does not address the default limit or pagination.

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 only 43%, with the date field richly documented (YYYYMMDD, ranges, 31-day cap, day-by-day failure semantics) while week, group, limit, and season_type lack schema descriptions. The description mentions filtering by week, season type, and Top 25 group but adds no format or value semantics for these, so half the parameters remain underspecified.

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 uses specific verbs and resources ('Fetch final scores and results', 'live scores, game status, periods/innings, clocks/outs, TV broadcasts') and enumerates the supported sports, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It distinguishes this from related tools implicitly through the live/final scoreboard focus, though it never names siblings like games_get_scoreboard_header or games_get_game_summary.

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?

It states that results can be filtered by date, week, season type, or Top 25 group, which implies the main use case (pulling scores for a given sport/league and date). However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance or stated preconditions, so the agent must infer when this beats the many sibling games_* tools.

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