sportsbet_popular_promotions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return shape and disclosing auth behavior: it works without a key, and a refresh token expands results. This is useful and does not contradict 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?

The description is three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the resource, giving the return format, and explaining auth requirements. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary repetition of schema content.

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 promotions endpoint, the description covers the essential call context: target resource, provider/client scoping, return shape, and auth prerequisites. Valid provider/client values are not enumerated, but the schema already notes they are URL path components, and openWorldHint suggests the value space is open.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that provider and client are the scoping pair and adds no extra syntax, defaults, or domain-specific parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the resource (popular/trending promotions), the scoping context (provider + client), and the return payload shape. It is clear enough to identify what the tool does, though the first sentence is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling promotions 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?

The description implies usage: call this when you need popular promotions for a specific promo provider and client. It provides the auth prerequisite, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling promotions endpoints like betr_promotions or pointsbet_promotions, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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