pointsbet_event_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only search operation but doesn't explicitly state safety, idempotency, or side effects. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. The historic stats inclusion is noted but not elaborated.

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 short and to the point, including the return structure and a concrete example (AFL events with historic stats). No unnecessary words, and the example aids understanding despite lacking detail.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the return shape but fails to explain default behavior (e.g., how many events, sorting, pagination), parameter interactions, or how to interpret results. For an agent to use it correctly, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely maps the parameters: 'by class / competition' hints at eventClassIds and competitionKey, and 'optionally with historic head-to-head stats' hints at includeHistoricStats. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of numberOfSportEvents (default 100) or provide format/valid values for any parameter.

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 searches sport events by class/competition, with an optional historic stats feature. This gives a specific verb and resource, but it doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pointsbet_competition_events' or 'pointsbet_event', though the historic stats mention provides some uniqueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it compares to other pointsbet event tools. The agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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