sportsbet_results_classes

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by disclosing the return envelope and the auth behavior: 'works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set.' The 'unlocks more' phrase is vague but 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 compact and well structured: purpose, return shape, example, and auth each occupy one clear line. The most actionable information is front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description gives the return format, a usage example, and auth requirements, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around what the token 'unlocks more' exactly provides and whether historical dates behave differently, but these are unlikely to block an agent.

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 schema already documents the single date parameter at 100% coverage, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the literal 'today'. The description reinforces this with a concrete example but adds no new constraints or semantic details beyond the schema.

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 as 'sport classes that have results available for a date' and provides the return shape, so an agent can infer this fetches a date-scoped list of classes. The phrase 'results available' helps distinguish it from a generic sportsbet_sports_classes listing, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 example 'Classes with results today: {"date": "today"}' implies when and how to use the tool. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over related siblings such as sportsbet_results_competitions or sportsbet_sport_resulted_events, and gives no exclusions.

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