espn_nba_scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'current' scores but does not detail update frequency, scope (e.g., all games today?), data freshness, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool that likely retrieves live data.

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 sentence that is concise and direct. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a second sentence about scope) without losing conciseness.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details such as whether scores are for all current games or just a subset, or how often they update. This could lead to incomplete understanding.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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', the resource 'NBA scores', and the source 'ESPN'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like espn_mlb_scores or espn_nfl_scores by specifying 'NBA'.

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 tool name and description make the context clear: it is for NBA scores. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are mentioned, the sibling tool names imply the differentiation (e.g., other sports have their own tools). This provides sufficient context for selection.

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