pointsbet_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Auth: none needed' and the exact return shape, including nested markets and outcome structure. No contradiction.

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 lean and well-structured: a single opening line summarizing capability, a returns block with type shapes, and an auth note. No redundant phrasing or 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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description compensates by providing a detailed return structure. It covers purpose, input source, auth, and expected output, making it complete for an agent to 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?

The input schema already fully describes eventKey with type, example, source, and requirement. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Full event detail' with an explicit list of contents (fixed-odds markets, selections, prices, SGM, team stats, insights). This distinguishes it from simpler list/search tools in the PointsBet family and other event 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?

The description implies usage context: to get comprehensive event data when you have an eventKey from any events feed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'Full event detail' and the requirement for an eventKey give clear context.

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