get_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note beyond them: the result may be a live in-progress game or a final one, which affects how the agent should interpret freshness. It does not discuss missing/invalid game_pk handling or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload description before the argument note. No filler wording and nothing restated from the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value narration is unnecessary, and with one required parameter the surface is small. The description covers what is retrieved and where the id comes from; only the live-versus-final implication for freshness/caching is left implicit.

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 carries the burden for the single required parameter, and it delivers the key fact the schema omits: game_pk is the game id sourced from get_schedule. Format details (an integer game primary key versus some other identifier) are left to the schema's type declaration.

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?

A specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a game') with the returned content enumerated: line score plus each team's batting and pitching box score. It is clearly distinct from siblings in substance, but it never explicitly positions itself against nearby tools such as get_player_game_log or get_schedule, so it stops short of a 5.

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 line 'Game id from get_schedule' usefully tells the agent where to obtain the input, which is a real routing hint toward the sibling that produces it. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over the player-level or team-level siblings, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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