nba_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: no pagination behavior beyond the schema's default, no mention of what a season year with no games returns, and no indication of result shape or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Its brevity is defensible for a simple lookup, though it leaves room for one differentiating clause at no cost.

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?

The tool is simple, all three optional parameters are fully documented, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so basics are covered. The missing piece is competitive positioning against espn_nba_scores, which matters for correct tool selection in this crowded sports namespace.

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% and each parameter (limit, season, team_id) is documented in the schema, including the pointer to nba_teams. The description contributes no additional meaning about filtering or pagination, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Browse' plus the resource 'NBA game scores and results' tells an agent exactly what data comes back. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling espn_nba_scores, which appears to serve the same need, so an agent cannot pick between them from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus espn_nba_scores, nor any mention of pairing it with nba_teams to resolve team IDs (that hint lives only in the schema). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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