sportsbet_sports_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: the tool works without a key, a refresh token unlocks more data, and finished events return the resulted card rather than live markets. The token behavior is vague ('unlocks more') but is still additional disclosure.

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 compact sections—purpose, return shape, and auth—are front-loaded and free of filler. The return-shape example earns its place because there is no output schema, and every sentence contributes to calling the tool correctly.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, including an explicit return shape is valuable and mostly complete. The schema covers parameter meanings and the description covers auth and finished-event behavior. The main gap is lack of guidance on which sibling card/market tools to prefer and what 'unlocks more' actually returns.

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 six parameters and the required eventId. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, aside from implying the default card shape; thus the baseline 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 identifies the tool as returning a full sport event card with all markets and selections, and notes it returns resulted events when finished. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sportsbet_event_markets and sportsbet_event_results by the 'full card' scope, though it stops short of using an explicit verb or naming a sibling.

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 phrase 'Full sport event card' and the 'resulted event if finished' clause imply when to use the tool, but no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. The auth note adds operational context, not selection guidance.

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