entain_video_channels

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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: HLS .m3u8 URL format, short-lived token requiring verification, no auth needed, and the exact return shape.

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 tight and front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the core purpose and format, followed by a compact return-shape line and an auth line. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it provides the return structure, the URL format, the critical token-expiry caveat, and auth status. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe any filtering or scoping options, but with zero params that's not a significant omission.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately focuses on return semantics (channel id, name, url) instead of parameters, which is all that's needed.

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 this tool returns racing live-video channels in HLS .m3u8 format, with an explicit return shape of {channels:[{id, name, url}]}. The 'Racing' qualifier distinguishes it from other live-video tools like afl_live_video, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling video/broadcast tools (e.g., afl_live_video, betfair_scores_broadcast, pointsbet_inplay_streaming). The token-expiry warning is an operational caveat but does not help with tool selection.

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