pinnacle_sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape with field names, which is valuable behavioral context beyond 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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for return shape, and one for auth. It front-loads the main purpose and every line provides necessary information with no redundancy.

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, this description is largely complete: it states the output, field names, array type, and authentication. The only missing piece is guidance on when to use this specific tool among the many Pinnacle siblings, but the simplicity of the operation makes this a minor gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool starts at a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details, though it does specify the return fields.

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 'All sports with their matchup counts and primary market type' and the subsequent 'Returns' line clarifies the action. It clearly identifies the resource (sports) and the scope (all), distinguishing it from sibling Pinnacle tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups or pinnacle_sports_live.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related Pinnacle tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without context for selection among many siblings.

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