espn_get_scoreboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns scoreboard data but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is minimal and lacks depth beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence of 19 words, front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient and contains no redundant information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level summary of returns (scoreboard with game status, scores, basic info). It mentions the key parameters (sport, league, dates) but does not explicitly note that dates is optional for live scores. The description is mostly complete for a scoreboard tool.

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?

All 4 parameters have schemas with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though it does clarify the overall return type.

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 retrieves live or date-specific scores for a sport/league, returning a scoreboard with game status and scores. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like espn_get_standings or espn_get_team_schedule.

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 implies usage for live or date-specific scoreboards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like espn_get_event_summary or espn_get_team_schedule. No when-not or explicit context is given.

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