dabble_active_competitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing the read-only nature. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the approximate count (~318), that no authentication is needed, and the exact return structure. No contradiction with 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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the tool's purpose, then the usage flow, then field details, then return format and auth. Every sentence contributes. The only minor waste is the slight redundancy of the `sportId` filtering instruction already present in the schema.

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 read-only discovery tool with a single optional parameter, the description is fully complete. It provides scope (~318 competitions), the downstream recommendation, the response object shape, and authentication requirement, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 already fully documents the single optional `sportId` parameter, including its source (dabble_sports) and the omit-for-all-sports behavior. The description repeats this filtering guidance but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 lists every currently-bettable competition across all sports and serves as the discovery entry point. It also references the downstream tool dabble_competition_fixtures, which helps differentiate from that sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named dabble_competitions sibling.

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 provides clear usage context: it is the discovery entry point, and users should pick an `id` and pass it to dabble_competition_fixtures. It also explains how to filter by `sportId`. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives like dabble_competitions, but the context is strong.

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