pointsbet_competition_events

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 value beyond annotations by disclosing the exact return shape ({key, name, nextPage, events:[...]}), the nextPage-based pagination behavior, and that no auth is needed—none of which appear in 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 purpose is front-loaded in a single line, followed by a compact return-shape line, a minimal JSON example, and a one-line auth note. There is no filler or redundancy—every element earns its place and the structure is highly scannable.

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 carries the burden of return-value disclosure and does so with a concrete structure, pagination semantics, and a worked example. Combined with rich annotations, full parameter documentation in the schema, and auth disclosure, the tool is fully specified for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already well documented: page is described as '1-based page; follow nextPage in the response' and competitionKey includes an example and its source from pointsbet_sport_competitions. The description's example JSON reinforces usage but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening line 'Featured events for one competition (paged) with their insight/featured markets' uses a specific verb/resource pairing and clearly scopes to a single competition, distinguishing it from sport-level siblings like pointsbet_sport_featured_events. The mention of paging and the specific market types adds further precision beyond a generic listing statement.

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 example ('AFL competition events, first page' with competitionKey 7523) and the schema note that competitionKey comes 'from pointsbet_sport_competitions' give clear contextual guidance on when and how to invoke the tool. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions are stated, so differentiation from pointsbet_sport_featured_events remains implied rather than explicit.

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