sportsbet_sport_resulted_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact return structure '{events:[{eventId, name, finalScore}]}' and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed,' providing useful behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey. No contradiction exists.

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 three compact lines covering purpose, return format, and authentication. It is front-loaded, with no redundant or wasteful sentences, and every line earns its place.

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—three well-documented parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema—the description provides sufficient coverage of purpose, return shape, and auth. It lacks explicit usage guidance or pagination details, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward read-only lookup.

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%, with each parameter already described (e.g., date 'Result date, YYYY-MM-DD.' and competitionId 'Required — part of the URL path.'). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Resulted (finished) events for a sport competition + class + date.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sportsbet_event_results, though the scope is sufficiently distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests alternative tools for other use cases. The description only defines the tool's purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any comparison to siblings.

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