tab_featured_events

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context by documenting the return shape, showing an example call, and explaining that authentication is optional but may unlock more data. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return-shape block, example, and auth note each provide useful information, though the example is slightly ambiguous in formatting and could be more clearly labeled as an 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 there is no output schema, the description does well to spell out the exact return fields. It also covers the single optional parameter, provides an example, and clarifies authentication expectations. Combined with the strong annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100% because the only parameter, jurisdiction, is documented as 'State jurisdiction.' The description adds an example value (NSW) but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's semantic explanation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: editorially featured events across racing and sports for the homepage carousel. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the combination of the resource scope and the 'Returns' clause makes the tool's function clear. It is distinguishable from single-sport or non-featured sibling tools like tab_sports_next_to_go or tab_recommendation_featured.

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 phrase 'for the homepage carousel' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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