sportsgameodds_leagues

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

Annotations declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds critical context: the return shape is unverified vendor documentation, likely approximate, and requires inspecting the actual payload. It also discloses the need for a personal API key. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by return shape, a caveat, an example, and auth note. Each section earns its place, though it is somewhat long; the vendor-verification caveat is important and justified.

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 no output schema, the description provides an approximate return shape, an example, and auth details, which is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool. It lacks a full enumeration of sportID values or error conditions, but the unverified-shape warning makes the agent well-prepared.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, sportID, with 'Restrict to one sport.' The description adds a concrete example using 'FOOTBALL', which offers slight extra value but does not enumerate valid values or add meaningful semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 resource as leagues with league IDs used by other tools (e.g., NFL, NBA, MLB), and includes the return shape with leagueID/sportID/name/enabled. It distinguishes from sibling sportsgameodds tools by emphasizing that other tools filter on leagueID, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', relying on the 'Returns:' line for action.

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 usage by stating 'the leagueID other tools filter on' and provides an example with 'sportID': 'FOOTBALL', plus notes auth requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the reference for league IDs.

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