sportsbet_page_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format and that no authentication is needed. This is useful additional transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is extremely concise: three short lines covering purpose, return shape, and auth. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant 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?

For a simple read-only content tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (modules structure) and that no auth is needed. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the inline return example. It could go deeper on item structure, but the minimal description is adequate for a straightforward content endpoint.

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 100%, so the parameters 'tab' (with enum), 'loggedIn', and 'popularsrms' are fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool provides 'Homepage tab content (sports or racing landing modules)' – a specific resource with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from the many sportsbet sibling tools by focusing on homepage tab modules, not events, markets, or racecards. The return shape is also described, further clarifying its purpose.

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 gives clear context: this is for homepage tab content for sports or racing. It also notes 'Auth: none needed,' which is useful guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would be helpful given the large sibling set, but the context is strong enough to infer appropriate usage.

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