SquadRide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'fetch', implying a read operation, and explains how to extract the id from a link. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether the response includes the full slip or only picks.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Fetch a slip by id') and adds supporting detail without excess. Every clause contributes to either purpose or parameter semantics.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description mentions that it lists picks, giving some return context. However, it does not clarify whether the response includes slip metadata, how errors are returned, or pagination behavior. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema only defines id as a string with length constraints, with 0% description coverage. The description adds essential semantic meaning: 'the part after /slip/ in a squadride.app link'. This directly helps an agent construct a valid id, which is exactly what a schema cannot convey.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a slip by id' and 'list its picks'. This distinguishes it from siblings list_books and translate_bets, which are about different domain objects. The id extraction hint further clarifies the tool's scope.

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, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-related detail is how to derive the id from a link, which is more parameter semantics than tool selection guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or what 'health' means. The phrase 'daily port check' hints at data source but is not explained, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.

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 sentence, but it is poorly structured and not front-loaded with the core action. It leads with a possessive phrase rather than a clear verb, and the health clause is distracting. While brief, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, which is not effective 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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should be self-sufficient. However, it fails to explain what the tool actually returns, what 'health' refers to, or how 'daily port check' affects results. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior from this description.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers all inputs. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 'Sportsbooks SquadRide can open, with health from the daily port check' is vague and does not clearly state the action. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and the health/port check clause confuses rather than clarifies. The title is clearer, but the description adds ambiguity about what is being returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools get_slip and translate_bets. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return artifacts, the requirement that totals need an 'event', and that team codes and nicknames are both accepted. It does not cover side effects of creating a slip or failure modes, but the most operationally important behavior is surfaced.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the input and output in the first sentence, then adds the essential constraints. Every sentence earns its place, though a slightly more structured layout could improve scannability.

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 output schema and a nested parameter structure, the description explains the main return artifacts and an important input constraint. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly describe how the 'books' parameter affects the deep links, but the schema already documents the allowed book values and default behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping picks into bet types ('team, spread, total, player prop') and by explaining that 'event' is required for totals and that both team codes and nicknames work. This goes beyond the schema's structural field descriptions.

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 names the operation ('Send a list of picks') and the output ('one squadride.app slip URL' plus per-sportsbook deep links), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools get_slip and list_books, so it falls short of full sibling-level clarity.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent has a list of picks that need to become shareable sportsbook links. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions get_slip or list_books as alternatives, so routing depends on the agent inferring from tool names.

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