get-date-range-schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the NHL schedule' but doesn't clarify what data is returned (e.g., game details, teams, times), whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and multiple siblings. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or differentiation from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

The description mentions 'date range' but doesn't add meaningful details beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (startDate and endDate) with format specifications (YYYY-MM-DD). The description doesn't explain date range constraints, validation rules, or usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NHL schedule for a date range'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-date-schedule' or 'get-month-schedule', which likely serve similar purposes with different time granularities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple schedule-related siblings (e.g., 'get-date-schedule', 'get-month-schedule', 'get-week-schedule'), it fails to specify scenarios where this date-range approach is preferred over fixed-period tools or other schedule methods.

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