pinnacle_sport_matchups_all

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 annotations: the exact return shape ("[{id, league:{name}, participants:[...], startTime, hasMarkets, isLive}]"), the "top-level array" structure, and "Auth: none needed." It adds valuable operational detail without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact sections for return shape, a concrete example, and auth requirements. Every line contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly shoulders the burden of describing the return value, and it does so explicitly. The example and auth note round out what an agent needs for this simple, annotated read-only tool. It could be more complete by explicitly differentiating itself from live and league-scoped siblings (`pinnacle_sport_matchups_live`, `pinnacle_league_matchups`), but the "not just highlighted" note covers the primary sibling.

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 for sportId, stating it comes from `pinnacle_sports` and is a URL path component. The description adds a concrete worked example ({"sportId": 3} for baseball), giving the agent a grounded value to verify its call against the return structure. This is a modest but real addition beyond the schema.

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 leads with a clear, specific verb+resource: "All matchups for one sport (the full list, not just highlighted)." The parenthetical explicitly contrasts this with a highlighted-only version, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool `pinnacle_sport_matchups`. The baseball example further reinforces the intended scope.

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 "the full list, not just highlighted" provides clear context on when to use this tool (get every matchup for a sport) versus a featured/highlighted subset. However, it never explicitly names the alternative tool (`pinnacle_sport_matchups`) or states when NOT to use it (e.g., live-only should use `pinnacle_sport_matchups_live`), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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