ncaa: Get game

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (play-by-play, box score, stats), providing context about the tool's behavior beyond 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 communicates the essential information without any redundant or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and quickly specifies the content.

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?

For a tool with two simple required parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately explains the return content. It could mention if game_id has specific formatting or that the tool works for all NCAA sports, but the current level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand its use.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (sport and game_id). Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional semantics or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific NCAA game, including play-by-play, box score, and stats.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific NCAA game' are explicit. The list of included data types (play-by-play, box score, stats) distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncaa_get_news or ncaa_get_rankings.

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 obtaining detailed game information but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncaa_get_scoreboard for summaries or ncaa_get_teams for team data. No scenario exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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