pointsbet_events_nextup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed' and 'ordered by start time', plus the exact return structure. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting any 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 remarkably concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide return structure and auth info. Every word 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the scope (all codes), ordering, return fields, and authentication. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the response 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 only parameter, v2Limit, is fully documented in the input schema ('Max events to return.'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add extra parameter context, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Next-up sport events across all codes, ordered by start time (homepage feed).' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pointsbet_event_search or pointsbet_sport_featured_events by emphasizing the cross-code, time-ordered homepage feed context.

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 'homepage feed' phrase provides clear context for when to use this tool versus more specific alternatives, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. This is clear context without full when/when-not guidance, so it earns a 4.

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