sportsbet_match_preview

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

The description discloses the return format ({preview:{title, body, videoUrl}}) and that auth is not required. Annotations already state readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds useful context without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences with a clear return format and auth note. Every word earns its place, 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 simple read-only preview tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure and authentication requirements. All parameters are documented in the schema, making the tool ready to use.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with inline descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states it provides an 'Editorial match preview (text + video) for one sport event' with a specific return structure. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like sportsbet_race_preview or odds/market 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?

It clearly indicates it is for a single sport event and that no authentication is needed, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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