sportsbet_event_commentary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds the return format structure and states 'Auth: none needed,' which goes beyond annotations. It also notes 'Live' to indicate real-time data, providing useful context without contradicting 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 extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, return format, and auth. It is front-loaded with the key action and includes only essential details. 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the return structure explicitly ('{events:[{eventId, score, commentary:[{time, text}]}]}'), the auth requirement, and live nature. With strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter eventIds has a description ('Comma-separated sport event ids.'). The description adds that the tool supports 'one or more' events, but this is minimal extra value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool provides 'Live score + text commentary for one or more sport events,' using a specific verb (live score/commentary) and resource (sport events). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sportsbet_event_results or sportsbet_event_status by focusing on commentary.

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 the use case (when you need live score and text commentary) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With many sportsbet sibling tools, some explicit differentiation would help, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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