get-date-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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the schedule returns (games list, times, teams), error handling for invalid dates, or whether it returns past/future schedules. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise at 7 words: 'Get the NHL schedule for a specific date.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, contains zero redundant information, and every word earns its place. This is an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 tool's moderate complexity (schedule retrieval with date parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the schedule contains (game details, times, teams), whether it returns past/future dates, error conditions, or the response format. With multiple similar schedule tools as siblings and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more complete context for proper tool selection and usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'date' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema ('Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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: 'Get the NHL schedule for a specific date' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NHL schedule') with a scope ('for a specific date'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-current-schedule' by specifying date-based retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-date-range-schedule' or 'get-month-schedule' which are closely related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-current-schedule', 'get-date-range-schedule', 'get-month-schedule', and 'get-schedule' available, there's no indication of when this single-date version is preferred over those other schedule retrieval tools. The description merely states what it does without contextual usage information.

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