ncaa: Get scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns 'games with scores, status, and basic info,' but beyond that, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, potential inconsistencies due to open world, or any structural details of the response. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second describes what is returned. No extraneous information. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. However, it could be more complete by explicitly noting that the tool returns current or live games, and by providing a hint about the output structure (e.g., 'returns an array of game objects'). Still, for a straightforward scoreboard lookup, it meets the baseline.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for sport and division. The description mentions 'sport and division' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The optional date parameter is not mentioned in the description, so it fails to provide additional semantic context for it. With high schema coverage, the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 resource 'NCAA scoreboard', and specifies it returns games with scores and status. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like ncaa_get_schedule, which also returns games but for future dates. The term 'scoreboard' implies current/live games, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as ncaa_get_schedule or ncaa_get_game. The description does not provide context about the time relevance (e.g., current games vs. scheduled games) nor any when-not-to-use conditions. This leaves the agent unclear about the appropriate use case.

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