sportsbet_results_classes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the return format, an example, and an auth note, which are useful but do not go beyond what the annotations and schema already imply. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured: opening purpose, return format, example, and auth note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it specifies the return structure, provides an example, and notes auth. It covers the essential context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'date' parameter. The description reinforces the parameter semantics with the example using 'today', but does not add substantially new information beyond the schema description, which already documents YYYY-MM-DD or 'today'.

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 that this tool returns sport classes with results for a date, and includes the return structure ({classes:[{classId, name}]}). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsbet_results_competitions (which focuses on competitions), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'.

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 for finding classes with results on a given date, and provides an example with 'today'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor mention any exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is only implicit.

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