sportsbet_nav_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious context: it works without a key, and SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN expands results. It could be more specific about what 'unlocks more' means, but it discloses auth-dependent behavior beyond the 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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: purpose/scope, return shape, auth. Every sentence adds value and the key purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only navigation tool, this description is complete: it states what the tool returns, the exact payload shape, and the auth requirement. There is no output schema, so describing the return structure in the description is necessary and sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not required. The description wisely invests space in the return structure and auth behavior instead, which is the only semantics an agent needs here.

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 resource ('Sports navigation hierarchy') and adds meaningful specificity with 'class → competition tree for menus.' It also shows the return shape, so an agent knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling Sportsbet navigation-like tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for menus' implies when this could be useful, and the auth note gives a basic usage precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternative Sportsbet hierarchy/class/competition tools. The intended use is inferred rather than stated.

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