get_bookmakers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful context that this feeds the odds tools, but it does not disclose return format or any edge cases. This is acceptable given the annotations carry most of the behavioral burden.

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, compact sentence that states the action, the resource, and the intended use. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only enumeration tool with strong annotations and a clear purpose, the description is complete. No output schema exists, but the description's statement of what the tool lists and why is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 and the schema confirms this (100% coverage), so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool where the schema fully documents the absence of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bookmaker slugs'), and states their purpose ('usable in the odds tools'). This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on fixtures, odds, standings, and search operations.

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 indicates this tool is useful as a prerequisite for the odds tools, providing clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose of listing bookmaker slugs, so the guidance is sufficient.

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