tab_competition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it works without authentication, and providing TAB_CLIENT_ID/TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more data. It also discusses optional top markets in the return. No contradiction with annotations; the added auth context pushes beyond the baseline.

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 structure, example, and auth note are in three sentences plus an example block. Every sentence adds new information, and the most critical info (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 a return structure and clarifies optional fields. It also mentions authentication requirements. It does not explain betOptions, sameGame, or jurisdiction semantics, but the schema covers params. For a read-only tool with good annotations, this is near complete; a small gap is the lack of explanation about the 'numTopMarkets' default and jurisdiction's impact.

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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value through a concrete example mapping 'sport' and 'competition' to actual values, and implies numTopMarkets via 'optionally top markets'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 opens with 'Competition page: its matches, bet options and (optionally) top markets', which clearly specifies the resource (competition) and what it returns. It also includes a concrete example ('AFL Football' / 'AFL') and a return structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tab_sport or tab_match.

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 for competition-level data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, and the example only illustrates parameter values without contextualizing the choice. The context signal of many sibling tools makes this absence notable.

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