entain_video_channels

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

The description adds meaningful operational detail beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: it warns that the video URLs' tokens expire within minutes and explains the auth behavior (works without a key; ENTAIN_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more). This is useful, non-obvious context that helps the agent handle the returned URLs correctly. 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?

Three short, information-dense lines: the resource type and caveat, the return contract, and the auth note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical warning (URL token expiry) is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it names the returned object structure, explains the HLS/token caveat, and specifies auth behavior. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is required. The description still clarifies the output shape and token behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly — racing live-video channels with HLS .m3u8 URLs — and specifies the return shape. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so purpose is somewhat implied rather than stated, but it is still distinguishable from sibling Entain tools by the video-channel/HLS specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other Entain or racing tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The name implies the purpose, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and related tools such as entain_racing_meeting or entain_sport_event_card.

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