euroleague: Get game boxscore

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

The description accurately reflects the read-only, idempotent nature already indicated by annotations, and adds value by specifying the scope (both teams, per-player and team stats). It provides sufficient behavioral context without contradicting 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 two sentences with no redundancy: one sentence for purpose and one for usage hint. It 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?

The description provides enough context for the tool's simple role: it returns a standard box score, with clear input requirements. However, without an output schema, it could be more detailed about the content, but the 'full box score' phrasing is adequate given common sports terminology.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal parameter context (game code source) but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a full box score with per-player and team stats, and distinguishes it from siblings like euroleague_get_game_header and euroleague_get_game_playbyplay. It also specifies the required input source (game code from euroleague_get_games).

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 explicitly provides the prerequisite (use game code from euroleague_get_games) and implies this tool is for full box scores, distinguishing it from header or play-by-play. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implicit sibling tools.

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