euroleague: Get game playbyplay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the behavioral safety profile is covered. The description does not add further behavioral details (e.g., about data volume, pagination, or response structure), but it does not contradict the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key usage hint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 three-parameter input schema and annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a critical prerequisite. It could benefit from noting the output format or structure, but the openWorldHint implies flexibility.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning the game code indirectly, which is baseline adequate.

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 the resource 'game's full play-by-play feed (every event by quarter),' establishing a specific purpose. It also references a prerequisite (game code from euroleague_get_games), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like euroleague_get_game_boxscore or euroleague_get_game_header.

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 a usage hint ('Use a game code from euroleague_get_games') but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than stated.

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