tab_competition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that authentication is optional, that providing TAB credentials unlocks more data, and by documenting the exact return shape. This goes beyond the structured annotations without being misleading.

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 front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by a precise return shape, a concrete example, and a brief auth note. Every section earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 there is no output schema, the description does well to state the return fields, provide an example invocation, and clarify auth requirements. It does not detail betOptions/sameGame structures or jurisdiction nuances, but the schema plus annotations cover the essential calling requirements well enough for a read-only endpoint.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some conceptual linkage by noting that top markets are optional, aligning with numTopMarkets, and it shows an example for sport and competition. However, it does not add meaningful semantic detail for jurisdiction beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool returns a competition page with its matches, bet options, and optionally top markets, and it provides a concrete return shape. It clearly focuses on competition-level data, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as tab_match or tab_match_markets.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'Competition page' and the listed contents, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like tab_match, tab_tournament, or other TAB endpoints. It gives an example and auth context, but not when/when-not or alternative selection advice.

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