get_boxscore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that only finished matches are available, that this is not live KDA, and that data availability varies by plan tier. It also mentions the output includes boxscore, starter/sub lineup, and sport-native model fields, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key exclusion and tier constraints. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, lookup modes, output contents, live-data exclusion, and plan limitations. However, without an output schema and with no parameter-level details for sport and limit, an agent may still need to consult sibling tools like list_sports or infer behavior from defaults to call it confidently.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that match_slug accepts a slug or kr_match_id and that omitting it returns a recent list. However, it does not explain the allowed values for the required sport parameter or the behavior of the limit parameter, leaving meaningful 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 a specific action and resource: retrieving a finished-match vault boxscore with lineup and sport-native model fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the live variant by saying 'Not live KDA — use get_live_boxscore.' The lookup modes (slug, kr_match_id, or recent list) are also specified.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for finished-match boxscores, not live data. It names the alternative tool for live KDA and provides tier-based availability restrictions (Sandbox, Hobby, Builder+), which helps an agent decide whether this tool is usable.

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