get_schedule

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a key behavioral limitation ('No kickoff times') and an inclusion ('teams on bye'), which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful contextual detail.

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 that front-loads the main content and places the exclusion at the end. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions 'games with date and status' but not whether it's an array, how teams are represented, or what status values look like. It also lacks parameter format details. An agent calling this tool would have to infer too much.

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation for the 'season' or 'week' parameters. It does not specify format, valid ranges, or meaning beyond the property names, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The agent must guess expected inputs.

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 resource (NFL games for a week) and specifies what is included (date, status, teams on bye) and explicitly excludes kickoff times. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like get_week_projections and get_nfl_state, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for selection or exclude cases, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name. With many siblings present, this is a notable gap.

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