tab_live_events_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about authentication requirements (works without a key, but TAB_CLIENT_ID/SECRET unlocks more), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It also specifies the return structure, which is helpful.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a return structure snippet, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, auth requirements, and the parameter. It could mention that the jurisdiction affects which events are returned, but the schema already covers that. Overall, it's complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (jurisdiction), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description doesn't elaborate on jurisdiction beyond the schema's 'State jurisdiction' but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a summary of live/in-play events across sports, with a specific return structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tab_sports_next_to_go or tab_match by focusing on a live summary across all sports, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 getting a high-level overview of live events, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other live-event tools like tab_sports_next_to_go or pinnacle_sport_matchups_live. It mentions the jurisdiction parameter but doesn't clarify when to change it.

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