sportsbet_sport_competition

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds beyond that by including the response structure and, importantly, the authentication behavior: it works without a key, with an optional refresh token unlocking more data. This gives an agent useful operational context beyond the structured 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 segments earn their place: one line for purpose, one for return shape, and one for auth. There is no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the most important information first, which helps an agent quickly decide whether to call it.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description is right to include a concise return shape, and the auth note is useful. It does not explicitly describe how eventFilter combinations or includeTopMarkets alter the payload, but the schema descriptions cover those flags. For a simple read-only competition-page tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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%, and each parameter already has a small meaningful description (eventFilter enum, includeAllEvents, includeTopMarkets, etc.). The prose description only generically mentions 'optional top markets', which maps to includeTopMarkets but adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 identifies a specific resource ('sport competition page') and states its contents: matches, outrights, and optional top markets. It also gives the return shape, so an agent can distinguish it from a generic sports listing. It doesn't however explicitly contrast it with the close siblings sportsbet_competition_matches and sportsbet_competition_outrights, so full differentiation relies on inference.

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 the tool is for retrieving a competition page containing matches and outrights, which is usable guidance. It does not state when to prefer it over more targeted siblings such as sportsbet_competition_matches or sportsbet_competition_outrights, nor does it give exclusions or fallback conditions. This is adequate but not explicit.

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