get-month-schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or output format (e.g., list of games with details). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the domain (NHL), action (Get schedule), and key filters (team, month).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., game dates, opponents, scores), error handling, or behavioral traits. For a data retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (team abbreviation format, year, month range). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying team and month filtering, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('NHL schedule for a specific team for a given month'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-current-schedule' by specifying team and month filtering, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-season-schedule' or 'get-week-schedule' which offer different temporal scopes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-season-schedule' or 'get-week-schedule' is provided. The description implies usage for month-level team schedules, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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