get_daily_schedule

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 describes the basic function and date handling but does not cover important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned schedule data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get MLB schedule for a specific date') and includes essential details (date format, default behavior) without any waste. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, error cases, or usage constraints. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values, but it does not, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool that might return complex schedule data.

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 input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'date_str' is for a specific date in YYYY-MM-DD format or defaults to today if not specified, which clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior. This effectively documents the single parameter beyond the schema, earning a high score.

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: 'Get MLB schedule for a specific date' with a verb ('Get') and resource ('MLB schedule'). It specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (today if not specified). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_game_summary' or 'get_standings', which might also involve schedule-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating when to use it: for retrieving the MLB schedule on a specific date or today. It mentions the default behavior if no date is specified. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'get_game_summary' for detailed game info or 'get_standings' for standings data, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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