sportsbet_sports_classes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it works without a key, SPORTSBET_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more if set, and the response format is classList. This is genuinely helpful, though it does not cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose, return shape, example, and auth requirements are each given in a short, front-loaded block. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, idempotent tool, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: required date window, filter flags are documented in the schema, auth behavior is stated, and the return shape is shown. The only minor gap is a slight mismatch between 'with their competitions' and the classList-only return shape shown, but overall the tool is sufficiently specified 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%, and the input schema already explains the date format, required fields, and the two live-event filter booleans. The description adds only an example date window and does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool returns sport classes (sports) and their competitions for a date window, and includes the concrete return shape classList with classId, className, and classDisplayOrder. It is reasonably clear and distinguishable from broader Sportsbet navigational tools by its date-window scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 date-window framing and the 'next 24 hours' example imply when this tool is useful for time-boxed class lookups. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over overlapping sibling tools such as sportsbet_sports_card, sportsbet_nav_hierarchy, or sportsbet_results_classes, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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