sportsbet_class_coupon

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by showing the exact response shape and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed,' which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one compact return structure, and one auth note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the most important part (purpose) is front-loaded. No wasted 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 having no output schema, the description explicitly provides the return JSON structure, which greatly aids the agent in understanding the response. It also covers auth requirements. For a simple read-only tool with a single parameter, this is adequately complete; error conditions or pagination are not necessary here.

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% with the classId parameter already described as 'Sport class id. Required — part of the URL path.' The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond the context of the whole sport class. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 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 this tool returns a 'Coupon (grouped markets) for a whole sport class.' It identifies the resource (sport class coupon) and provides a concrete return structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target sports or competitions. No explicit differentiation from similar siblings, but the scope is specific enough.

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 when needing class-level grouped markets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sportsbet_sport_card or sportsbet_competition_matches. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the when-to-use scenario somewhat inferred from the 'whole sport class' phrasing.

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