get_game_play_by_play

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 mentions 'detailed play-by-play data' but does not specify what that includes, whether it's read-only, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex data like play-by-play details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'game_id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic details about the parameter, such as format or examples, but since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4. However, the lack of any parameter guidance in the description reduces it to 3, as it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed play-by-play data for a specific MLB game'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_game_summary' or 'get_game_boxscore', which might offer overlapping or related data, so it misses the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_game_summary' or 'get_game_boxscore', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context implied but not specified.

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