sportsbet_nav_hierarchy

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

The description supplements the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations by explicitly disclosing the return structure (a JSON object with a 'nav' array) and the fact that no authentication is required. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover potential edge cases like response size or pagination.

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, consisting of a one-line purpose statement and a compact return structure. Every sentence adds value, and the format is well-organized with clear separation of return type and auth requirement.

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 tool with no input parameters and a simple, well-defined output, the description is fully complete. It provides the exact return shape, confirms no authentication is needed, and aligns with the annotations. No additional context is required.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no ambiguity, and the baseline for parameter semantics is high. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the absence of any parameter-related text 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 identifies the tool as returning a sports navigation hierarchy structured as a class-to-competition tree, which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like sportsbet_sports_classes or sportsbet_sport_competition. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the 'Returns:' clause to convey the action.

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 provides minimal usage context by stating 'for menus', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No sibling comparisons or conditional guidance are provided.

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