pointsbet_sports_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the date token does not affect the response ('returns the current catalogue regardless'), auth is not needed, and the return shape is given. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss pagination or size.

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: a one-line purpose, a return shape line, an example, and an auth note. Each sentence carries useful information without waste, and the structure front-loads the main purpose.

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 one-parameter, read-only, list-type tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the return structure, an example invocation, and the auth requirement. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the inline return format.

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 description coverage is 100% and the input schema already explains the date parameter thoroughly: format, that any valid token works, and that it's part of the URL path. The tool description only repeats an example and adds no new parameter semantics, so 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 returns the 'Full catalogue of sports and their competitions (every code, featured flags)' – a specific resource with explicit scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pointsbet_sport_competitions (specific sport) and pointsbet_sports_inplay (in-play only).

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 – you call this when you need the complete sports/competitions catalogue – but it never explicitly says when to use this vs alternatives or provides exclusions. The scope is clear via 'full' and 'every code', but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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