sportsbet_bet_history

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing critical behavioral traps: the response key is `betList`, not `bets`, reading `bets` produces a dangerous false negative, and sportsbet_place_bet's 202 Accepted means processing rather than confirmation. It also documents verified behavior, row fields, and auth behavior, which the annotations do not cover.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the most critical warning, but it is repetitive: 'THIS IS HOW A PLACEMENT IS CONFIRMED' appears twice, and the verified-date caveats add length. Every sentence contributes useful content, yet tighter editing would improve readability without losing value.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the return shape ({betList:[…]}), key row fields, and the false-negative risk. All parameters are already covered by the schema (100%), and the description adds the behavioral caveats needed to use the tool correctly, including filter semantics, placement confirmation, and auth expectations.

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, but the description adds meaningful parameter guidance: `filterType` values are explained for the placement-readback use case, `includeLegData` is tied to verifying what was bet, and the returned fields give practical meaning to parameters like limit. It also clarifies that auth works without a key, enriching the `appToken`/`customerId` parameter context.

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 this tool returns the account's own bets ('Your own bets at Sportsbet') and emphasizes its role as the confirmation point for placements. The verb 'Returns' plus the explicit {betList:[…]} result makes the function unmistakable, and the placement-confirmation framing distinguishes it from other Sportsbet read tools.

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?

Strong contextual usage guidance is present: 'PENDING is what you want for reading back a bet you have just placed' and the repeated warning that a bet is only confirmed once it appears here. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to choose instead, but the placement-verification scenario is clearly defined.

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