sportsbet_event_commentary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the return format and by explicitly stating that no API key is required, while a refresh token unlocks additional data. This is useful behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 three short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the return contract and auth requirements with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, the shape of that return, and authentication behavior. It does not explain where to source eventIds or mention relevant sibling tools, but neither is essential for basic invocation.

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 schema already documents eventIds as 'Comma-separated sport event ids,' so baseline is 3. The description adds 'one or more' and shows eventId in the return structure, which reinforces the parameter's meaning but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: it provides 'Live score + text commentary' for sport events. It also gives the return shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling commentary tools like pl_match_commentary or entitysport_match_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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does mention auth behavior, which is useful context, but it does not say when this tool is preferable to other commentary or event-score tools.

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