entain_quicklinks_list

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

With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already present, the description adds meaningful context: it returns data without a key, and an ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN can unlock additional data. It also documents the output shape so an agent knows what behavior to expect. 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?

Four short lines: purpose, return shape, example, and auth. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, and the content is front-loaded with the resource type. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, this covers purpose, the single parameter, a working example, output fields, and auth requirements. The main gap is that the full set of valid filter types is not enumerated and 'unlocks more' is vague, but the tool's low complexity makes this sufficient for reliable invocation.

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% because the filter parameter is described with a type example ('QuickLinkFilter, e.g. ...') and a failure mode ('bare string returns 500'). The description's example adds a concrete Racing use case but does not materially expand beyond the schema. 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 identifies the resource as 'Navigation quick-links (racing/sports nav tiles)' and the tool name adds the 'list' action, so an agent knows it returns a collection of quick-link tiles. It clearly distinguishes the Entain quick-links domain from sibling tools like entain_featured_slider or sportsbet_nav_hierarchy, though it does not name a direct alternative. The explicit return shape reinforces the purpose.

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 example with filter 'type: Racing' implies when to call it (when racing/sports nav tiles are needed), and the auth line states prerequisites. However, the description never compares this to alternatives such as entain_featured_slider or other navigation resources, leaving an agent to infer when NOT to use it.

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