Matchup Scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'real-time', which is a helpful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradictions. However, it does not detail any other behaviors like caching or latency.

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, well-structured sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

While output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description lacks parameter details and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_matchups. For a tool with two required parameters, this is insufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain either parameter (league_id or week) beyond the context 'specific week', leaving significant ambiguity about format, constraints, or how league_id is used.

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), resource (scoring for matchups), and context (specific week). It is specific and informative, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_matchups', which may have a similar purpose.

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 only mentions 'in a specific week', providing minimal context. It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_matchups), when not to use it, or prerequisites such as league_id or week format.

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