nhl: Get game play by play

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) are already present, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by stating the feed is 'full' and enumerating example events, giving agents a sense of content breadth. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second clarifies content. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficient. It explains the output type (play-by-play feed) and content scope. Lacks mention of output format or ordering, but overall complete for an agent to decide to use it.

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% for the single parameter (game_id), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It correctly leaves parameter semantics to the schema, achieving baseline adequacy.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the full play-by-play feed for an NHL game and lists event types (shots, goals, penalties, faceoffs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nhl_get_game_boxscore or nhl_get_game_landing, 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 implies usage when one needs detailed event data, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for boxscore or game landing). No when-not cases or prerequisites are mentioned.

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