entain_sport_event_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (entrants, events, markets, prices, etc.), giving an example, and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed' — information not covered by 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-organized: a one-line purpose, a return structure line, an example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, providing maximum information with minimal waste.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a solid return map, an example, and auth requirements. It could mention error behavior or the meaning of each return key, but for a read-only event card, this is sufficiently 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 schema already provides 100% coverage with 'Sport event UUID (bare, no type prefix).' The description reinforces this with an example ID but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema conveys.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Complete event card — every market, selection and price for one sport event.' It lists the specific return keys and provides a concrete example, making it clear this returns full event detail for a single event, distinguishing it from generic event requests.

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 phrase 'Complete event card' and the example imply it should be used when full event details are needed, but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like entain_sport_event_request are not referenced, leaving the comparative usage implicit.

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