sportsbet_sports_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the description only needs to add extra context. It does so by noting the dual behavior for live vs. resulted events and explicitly stating 'Auth: none needed', which goes beyond the structured annotations. This adds valuable insight without contradicting the hints.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences plus a compact return shape. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential extras like the return format and auth requirement. Every sentence 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?

With 6 parameters but no output schema, the description provides a helpful return shape and mentions the resulted-event behavior. It does not explain how the optional boolean include flags affect the output, but the schema descriptions cover those. The description is largely sufficient given the rich annotations and schema.

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 input schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 returns a 'Full sport event card (all markets + selections)' and also covers resulted events. This distinguishes it from siblings like sportsbet_event_markets by emphasizing the 'full' scope. The verb 'Full sport event card' is specific and tied to the resource.

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 use for comprehensive event data but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like sportsbet_event_markets or sportsbet_sport_card_legacy. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and 'full' wording.

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