get-schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or error handling. This is inadequate 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse 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 complexity of multiple schedule-related sibling tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what distinguishes this tool from others, what data it returns, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how teamAbbrev and date interact or default behaviors beyond the schema's date default). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 game schedule'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from multiple sibling tools that also retrieve schedules (e.g., get-current-schedule, get-date-range-schedule, get-month-schedule, get-week-schedule, get-season-schedule), which prevents a perfect score.

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 the many schedule-related sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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