sportsbet_sport_competition

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

The annotations already specify readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and a clear return format, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present, though it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, which is acceptable for a read-only page fetch.

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 highly concise with two short sentences plus a return block. It front-loads the core purpose, then the return shape, then auth. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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?

The tool has a rich input schema (all parameters described) and strong annotations. The description adds auth context and a return format, making it reasonably complete. It does not explicitly address the relationship to sibling tools like sportsbet_competition_matches, but the core functionality is well covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description lightly enriches parameters by mentioning 'matches, outrights' (mapping to eventFilter) and 'optional top markets' (mapping to includeTopMarkets), but it does not explain numMarkets or displayType further. Overall, the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 'Sport competition page: matches, outrights and optional top markets', which conveys the tool's function of retrieving a competition page with those components. It also provides a concrete return shape, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely focus on matches or outrights individually.

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 fetching a competition page containing both matches and outrights, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like sportsbet_competition_matches or sportsbet_competition_outrights. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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