apitennis_events

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: it requires the user's own API key, and it explicitly warns that the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified against a live response, advising the agent to inspect the actual payload before relying on field names. This is strong transparency beyond the annotations.

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-organized: purpose, response shape, reliability warning, example, and auth. It is slightly longer than necessary but every section adds distinct value, especially the unverified shape warning and the example call.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It provides the expected return shape, an example invocation, auth requirements, and a reliability caveat. The agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response cautiously.

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 only parameter, 'method', is fully described in the schema with 'Leave as-is.' and a default of 'get_events'. The description reinforces this by showing the example '{"method": "get_events"}' and the auth requirement, adding practical instruction beyond the schema's concise note.

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 'Event types the API covers' with examples like ATP singles and WTA doubles, and the returned shape confirms it lists event types. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the response shape and example make the purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like apitennis_fixtures and apitennis_livescore which cover different resources.

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 usage: call this tool when you need the event types the API supports, and the example shows the method to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like apitennis_fixtures or provide any exclusion criteria.

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