betfair_navigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed' and a return structure example. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but given the read-only nature and the annotations, the description adds sufficient value beyond structured data.

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 function summary, a returns block, an example, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan. No unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a partial return structure, an example, and integration guidance. The schema covers parameter semantics fully. The combination gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks details on pagination or full response shape, so it is not a 5.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description provides an example using 'nodeIds' and mentions the nodeType enum in the return shape, which indirectly helps understand parameter values. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Navigation graph by node — traverse sport → group → event → market.' It uses a specific verb ('traverse') and resource, and provides a concrete example (Horse Racing tree). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how it connects to betfair_market_prices, making its role in the hierarchy explicit.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to navigate the sport/group/event/market hierarchy. It explicitly directs the user to 'Feed market ids into betfair_market_prices,' demonstrating integration with a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other navigation-related siblings like betfair_markets_by_event, so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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