tab_competition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return shape but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The 'Returns' label implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a technical return structure that adds value but could be considered slightly dense. Overall, it is concise with minimal wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema and low parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It outlines key output fields (id, name, matches, betOptions, sameGame) but does not explain all fields or how to use the parameters correctly. The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters, yet the description only addresses one partially.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially describes numTopMarkets (via 'optionally top markets') but provides no semantics for required parameters sport and competition (e.g., valid values, format). The example mentions AFL but does not explain how to specify other competitions.

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 retrieves a competition page with matches, bet options, and optionally top markets. It provides a return structure example and a concrete example (AFL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tab_match (single match) and tab_sport (sport-level).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements are present; the context is only implied by the name and general description.

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