ncaa: Get schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety and non-modifying nature are clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details, such as data freshness, pagination, or scope of schedule (e.g., whether it includes past and future games).

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. Every word is essential, and it avoids redundancy with the title or schema.

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?

Due to the absence of an output schema, the description should give a sense of the return value (e.g., list of games with dates). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what data to expect. The simple nature of the tool might warrant a slightly higher score, but the lack of output description is a notable gap.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter-level guidance. It implies that a season (year) is needed, but the schema lists year as optional, creating potential confusion. It does not clarify the required sport or team_id parameters beyond what the schema already 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 uses a clear verb ('Get'), specifies the resource ('a team's NCAA schedule'), and includes the scope ('for a season'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ncaa_get_game or ncaa_get_scoreboard, which serve different purposes.

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 such as espn_get_team_schedule or other schedule tools. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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