espn_mlb_scores

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds limited context by indicating the data source (ESPN) and freshness ('current'), but does not describe return format, whether scores are live or final, or any rate-limit behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, sport, and source.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety behavior, the description is nearly complete. It could clarify whether results are live versus final or what the response shape looks like, but the absence of an output schema makes explaining return values less critical.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and the schema is fully covered.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get current MLB scores from ESPN.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling score tools for NFL, NBA, NHL, and soccer, as well as from espn_news and espn_team_info.

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 phrase 'current MLB scores' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus espn_news or espn_team_info. It is adequate but relies on the agent inferring the correct context from the tool name and description.

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