nhl: Get player game log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or output granularity beyond the generic phrase "game-by-game stats log." It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and scope.

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 4-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It conveys the general return type (game-by-game stats log) but does not explain what stats are included, pagination behavior, or return structure. Annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including formats, defaults, and game_type values. The description mentions player and season but adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("game-by-game stats log for an NHL player") with a clear scope ("in a given season"). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nhl_get_player and nhl_get_team_stats implicitly, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 only states what the tool returns; it provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not stated.

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