draftkings_event_context

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 states 'Returns' and 'public,' which implies a read-only operation and scope. It also makes clear the output is limited to navigation identifiers, avoiding confusion with tools that return odds or markets. It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior, but these are less critical for a simple public lookup, so 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose with a clear verb followed by the use case. It is well organized and easy to parse. The last sentence repeats 'public sport and league' from the previous sentence, which is minor redundant that keeps the score below excellent.

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, the description does mention the high-level categories returned (sport, league, event navigation identifiers), which helps the agent understand what to expect. It doesn't specify exact field names or how the identifiers work when navigating, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from many DraftKings siblings. This is adequate but not complete for a tool with no output schema.

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 schema description for event_id is 'Numeric DraftKings event id,' and the tool description repeats exactly the same language without adding new details. Schema coverage is 100%, so the structure already documents the parameter thoroughly. The description does not add meaning beyond that, hence the baseline 3.

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 tool's function: it returns public sport, league, and event navigation identifiers for a numeric DraftKings event id, which distinguishes it from odds-focused or market-focused entities. It is not a tautology and gives a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly disambiguate from the closely named 'draftkings_event' tool.

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 a clear use case: 'Use it to associate an event with DraftKings Sportsbook's public sport and league navigation.' This gives the agent a definite context for selecting the tool. It does not include explicit exclusions or name any alternative tools, but no exclusions are needed for such a targeted lookup.

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