daily_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool lists games and scores, but omits any information about auth requirements, read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or data format. The minimal text does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise at 12 words, with the core purpose stated first and the default behavior appended. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential function. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., date format, ordering, how it differs from similar tools). The completeness is adequate for a trivial tool but missing guidance that would help an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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 for the 'date' parameter. The description adds 'Defaults to today', which clarifies the default behavior and optionality. However, it does not specify the expected date format or allowed values, leaving the agent to infer. This adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns 'All games + scores for a date', which specifies the verb (list/retrieve) and resource (games and scores). The scope is well-defined, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_scoreboard' or 'get_game_details', leading to some ambiguity.

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. It mentions 'Defaults to today', which implies typical usage, but no explicit context, exclusions, or when-not-to-use. Sibling tools like 'get_scoreboard' or 'get_schedule' might be confused without further clarification.

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