get_daily_results

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 states the tool fetches results but doesn't describe important behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens for invalid dates), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section explaining the parameter and a 'Returns' section describing the output. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner (e.g., bullet points instead of plain text sections).

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return type, but misses behavioral details (e.g., error cases, date format) and doesn't leverage sibling context. It's adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'date', explaining its purpose ('The date for fetching game results') and default behavior ('default is today'). Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it lacks format details (e.g., expected date string format like 'YYYY-MM-DD').

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 tool's purpose: 'Fetch MLB game results for a given date'. It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('MLB game results'), and scope ('for a given date'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mlb_schedule' or 'mlb_team_result', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the default behavior ('default is today') but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mlb_schedule' (which might fetch future games) or 'mlb_team_result' (which could be team-specific). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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