pointsbet_event_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only adds 'Auth: none needed' and the return format. These are useful but limited; it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or error handling. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. It includes only essential extras: return format, a concrete example, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place 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 search tool with 4 optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose, includes a return example, and specifies auth. It lacks an example using eventClassIds and doesn't address edge cases like empty results, but the schema and example provide enough context for typical use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example (competitionKey 7523, numberOfSportEvents 50, includeHistoricStats true) adds concrete usage context, clarifying how parameters combine and emphasizing the 'class / competition' filtering concept beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Search sport events by class / competition, optionally with historic head-to-head stats' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling PointsBet event tools like pointsbet_event and pointsbet_competition_events by emphasizing search across classes/competitions and optional historic stats.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—searching sport events by class/competition, especially when historic stats are desired, as shown in the AFL example. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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