espn_nhl_scores

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get current NHL scores' without mentioning any traits like data freshness, rate limits, or what constitutes 'current' (e.g., live vs. most recent game).

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, short sentence (5 words) that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is essential, and there is no extraneous 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about what data is returned (e.g., game summaries, scores only) or any assumptions about date/league. A bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add semantics beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as per guidelines.

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 'Get current NHL scores from ESPN.' clearly specifies the action (Get), resource (NHL scores), and source (ESPN). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like espn_nba_scores or espn_mlb_scores by explicitly mentioning NHL.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state exclusions (e.g., 'for other sports, use other espn_*_scores tools') or any context about when it's appropriate to invoke.

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