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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'frozen per-day stat snapshot' usefully implies a stable, read-only historical view, which adds meaning beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention what happens for missing or future days, whether the result can be absent, or any other behavioral edge cases.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core identity is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either to defining the resource or to supporting correct invocation.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it defines what is returned, what parameter is needed, and where to find valid values. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the phrase 'stat snapshot', though more detail about the response shape or error behavior would improve completeness.

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%, and the day parameter is already documented with its format. The description adds extra value by stating that valid day values are discoverable at /boxscore/ on the site, which helps the agent obtain a correct parameter value rather than only knowing its format.

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 identifies the resource as a per-day box score and describes it as a frozen stat snapshot, which is specific and distinguishable from the sibling get_* tools. It states a clear verb-resource pairing and explains the core scope (one day). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the unique resource name and 'frozen per-day snapshot' make the 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 explicit context for when to use the tool: for a single day's boxscore, and it clarifies that the day parameter is required. It also tells the agent where to discover valid day values ('days are listed at /boxscore/ on the site'). It provides clear usage context, though it does not discuss when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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