sportsbet_sport_resulted_events

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: auth requirements ('works without a key; SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set') and the exact return shape. This exceeds the baseline set by 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 front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then auth. Every sentence provides distinct, useful information with no filler.

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 three-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, required scope, return structure, and auth requirements. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only paraphrases the parameter set ('competition + class + date') without adding new semantic detail, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Resulted (finished) events for a sport competition + class + date.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like sportsbet_upcoming_events and sportsbet_racing_resulted_events by specifying 'sport' and 'resulted.'

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 gives clear context: use this for finished events with final scores for a specific sport competition/class/date. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is explicit enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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