pointsbet_sport_competitions

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

The description supplements the read-only/idempotent annotations with the return shape, the grouping by locale, and explicit note that no auth is needed. It does not elaborate on potential edge cases, but the annotations already cover safety, and the added context is useful.

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 well-structured; it starts with purpose, gives the return schema, includes a concrete example, and ends with auth. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly defines the return structure and provides an example, covering the essential context for a simple read-only list tool. Minor gaps remain around locale semantics, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 sole parameter sportKey is fully described in the schema with examples, so the description adds little beyond a concrete AFL example. Schema coverage is 100%, making this an adequate baseline score.

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 identifies the resource as competitions for a specific sport, grouped by locale, and includes a return structure example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle events or feature sliders, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like pointsbet_competition_events or pointsbet_sport_featured_events. The provided example shows a valid invocation but does not state the intended use case or exclusions.

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