euroleague: Get game header

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered externally. The description adds the return-content breakdown, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the game_code is invalid, or rate limits.

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: the payload is front-loaded and the sourcing hint follows. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value context — and it does by listing the score, team and coach content. Given the read-only annotations and fully documented schema, this is nearly complete; only cross-sibling differentiation is missing.

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 every parameter including the game_code source and season_year example is already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter note ('a game code from euroleague_get_games') merely repeats the schema, adding no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get a game's header/summary') and enumerates the payload ('final and per-quarter scores, teams, coaches'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling euroleague_get_game_boxscore, which likely overlaps heavily.

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 gives one concrete prerequisite — 'Use a game code from euroleague_get_games' — which is useful routing context. But it never says when to pick this over euroleague_get_game_boxscore or euroleague_get_game_playbyplay, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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