tennis_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so extensively. It covers data source reality, billing and max_items as a hard spend cap, free rows, failure behavior if ESPN blocks access, date/time UTC handling, and legal/copyright restrictions. This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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 long, but the length is largely justified by billing, legal, and data-source caveats that are essential for correct use. Core functionality is front-loaded. It loses one point because the dense single-block structure and legal boilerplate could be organized more readably, but no sentence feels wasted.

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 description covers what data is returned, defaults, filtering semantics, billing implications, failure modes, timezone behavior, and legal constraints. An output schema exists, so return values do not need enumeration. For a tool with billing and legal sensitivity, this is exceptionally complete.

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 does. It explains that player is a name substring, that dates are UTC unless a timezone is set which only affects dateLocal, that max_items is a billing cap, and that tours default to both. These details add significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as an ATP and WTA tennis match data retriever covering tour events and Grand Slams, with explicit detail about the fields returned such as per-set scores, round, seeds, and court. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sports_scores by positioning itself as the tennis-default version of the same Actor family.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: for tennis scores from ESPN feeds, with both tours defaulting to today. It also warns that standings and schedule modes return a free notice for tennis, implying those are not supported. It stops short of explicitly stating 'use sports_scores for non-tennis sports,' but the 'same Actor family' reference provides enough implicit guidance.

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