betfair_scores_broadcast

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 valuable context by specifying the return array structure ({eventId, startTime, state:{score}, broadcast}) and stating 'Auth: none needed.' This goes beyond simply restating the annotations, though it stops short of describing edge cases like missing events or broadcast 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?

Three concise lines: a one-sentence purpose, a return shape example, and an auth note. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information, and each sentence adds unique value.

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 reasonably by giving a return shape example. It also covers auth. However, it doesn't mention what sports/leagues are covered, how to obtain eventIds, or the meaning of the nested score/broadcast objects. Given the tool's moderate complexity, it's mostly complete but leaves some gaps.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all five parameters (e.g., eventIds as 'Comma-separated event ids', regionCode as 'Region'). The description's phrase 'one or more events' reinforces the eventIds parameter but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 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 provides 'Live scores plus broadcast/streaming availability' for events, which is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling betfair_scores (scores-only). The return shape further clarifies the resource. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not name any sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: you'd call this when you need scores and broadcast info for specific events. But there's no explicit statement of when to use this versus betfair_scores, afl_broadcast_events, or other related tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but not explicitly guided.

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