sportsbet_match_preview

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

With no annotations, the description provides the return format {preview:{title, body, videoUrl}}, which adds transparency about output. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions or constraints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary information.

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?

Given 4 required parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to identify the event or handle constraints.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter (e.g., format for eventDate, meaning of sportsClass). It adds no meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'Editorial match preview (text + video) for one sport event', specifying the verb (preview) and resource (one sport event). It distinguishes from siblings like sportsbet_event_commentary by focusing on editorial preview content.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sportsbet_event_commentary or sportsbet_event_markets. The description lacks explicit context for selection.

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