betfair_event_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the exact return shape and that no auth is needed, but does not disclose potential pitfalls like event unavailability or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a return shape definition, and an auth note. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the return list is somewhat lengthy. It avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description helpfully specifies the return fields and format. However, it does not mention how this tool relates to sibling tools or any prerequisites. For a simple read-only tool with good annotations and schema coverage, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including defaults and meanings. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The note about 'one or more events' is implied by the array type of eventIds, so no additional value is added.

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 (event details) and lists the included fields (event name, competition, primary market, runners, start time). It is specific enough to distinguish from broadly named siblings like betfair_scores or betfair_market_prices, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as betfair_markets_by_event or betfair_scores. The 'In-play' qualifier implies a use case but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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