apisports_status

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it costs no quota, the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, and it warns to inspect the actual payload. It also discloses auth requirements (API_SPORTS_KEY). This is meaningful supplemental information.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every part adds value—especially the reliability warning about the unverified shape. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance, making it easy to scan.

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 compensates by detailing the return shape, including nested fields, and noting it's approximate. It also covers auth, quota cost, and when to use it. This is a complete picture for a no-parameter tool, enabling correct selection and invocation.

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 schema coverage is complete by default. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't; it appropriately focuses on the response and usage. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters applies here.

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 that the tool returns subscription details and remaining daily quota, which is a distinct purpose from the many data-fetching siblings. It identifies the resource (API Sports account status) and the intent is unmistakable, even without an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check'.

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 guidance: 'Costs no quota — call it first when something returns empty.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, and the 'Example: Quota check' reinforces the diagnostic use case. While it doesn't name alternatives, none are relevant for a quota check.

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