sports_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses unofficial status, ESPN terms-of-use restrictions, possible feed changes/blocking, failure means no charge, billing row rates, max_items hard spend cap, UTC timezone behavior, odds limitations, and trademark/copyright caveats. This is far beyond what structured annotations would normally provide.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main purpose before billing and legal details, and every clause adds operational value. It is however a single long paragraph; bullet points or short labeled sections would make it easier for an agent to parse, so it is not maximally structured.

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 multi-mode tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers modes, filters, billing, spending limits, timezone behavior, data source risks, and legal constraints. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. Nothing essential an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains each mode value, teams/status filtering before billing, include_odds default, date_from/date_to scope, timezone affecting only dateLocal, max_items as a hard cap, and event_ids for summary mode. However, some parameters such as season_type and exact date string formats are left undescribed, preventing a 5.

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 states specific outputs (scores, schedules, standings, team directories, game summaries) and enumerates 33 leagues with concrete examples, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tennis_scores by covering multiple sports and explicitly noting a change in include_odds default versus the Actor.

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?

It provides clear mode-based usage: scoreboard for date-range games, schedule for a team's season, summary for event_ids from an earlier scoreboard run, and filtering by teams/status before billing. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the sibling tennis_scores, but the league list makes the boundary reasonably inferable.

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