Purdue team schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data fields returned and source, which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the tool likely returns past, present, and future games (with scores for completed ones) or any limitations (e.g., only future schedule for in-progress sports). The description is adequate but not fully transparent about behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and detail. Every word adds value, and no extraneous information is present.

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 limited complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains what data the tool returns, the data source, and the parameters are well-documented in the schema. It lacks mention of return format (e.g., list of games) but is otherwise 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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context about what the returned data contains (e.g., final scores for played games) which is beyond the parameter descriptions. It could clarify that 'upcoming_only' hides games that have already been played, but the schema already says that. Baseline 3 plus extra context justifies 4.

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 retrieves a full season schedule for one Purdue team, listing specific data fields (dates, opponents, home/away, venue, final scores) and identifies the source. The verb 'schedule' and resource 'one Purdue team' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools that handle other topics.

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 the tool should be used to get a team's schedule, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like athletics_sports (which lists teams) or athletics_upcoming (which likely shows only upcoming events). No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided.

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