tab_featured_events

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

The annotations already show readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond that by specifying the return shape, an example, and auth behavior ('works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID ... unlocks more'). It doesn't fully explain what 'unlocks more' entails, so not a perfect score.

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: a one-line purpose, a return shape block, an example, and an auth note. It is concise and front-loaded, although the example line ('Featured carousel for NSW') is slightly redundant with the input example.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by hacking a clear return-shape example. For a simple read-only tool with one optional param, the description — reinforced by annotations — is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

There is one optional parameter with complete schema coverage ('jurisdiction' described as 'State jurisdiction'). The description reinforces the example with 'NSW', but adds no further semantic detail about the parameter 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 the tool returns 'Editorially featured events across racing + sports for the homepage carousel', which clearly identifies the resource and the content. The phrase 'editorially featured' distinguishes it from personalized or algorithmic tools in the long sibling list.

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 explicitly places the tool in a usage context ('for the homepage carousel') and provides an example call with jurisdiction. However, it does not discuss when to avoid it or point to a direct alternative among the siblings.

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