tab_live_events_summary

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior; the description adds that the tool works without a key, that optional credentials may unlock more, and gives a concrete return shape. It does not contradict annotations. The phrase 'unlocks more' is vague, and data freshness or jurisdiction effects are not described, but the added disclosure is still meaningful given the strong annotations.

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 first, then Returns, then Auth. There is no filler, and each section provides information needed to select or invoke the tool without redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter live-summary tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return shape, auth behavior, and scope. The main gaps are the exact effect of the jurisdiction parameter and what additional data the auth tokens unlock, but these are minor for a simple aggregate call.

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 already documents the single optional jurisdiction parameter with a default value and a description, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 that the tool returns a summary of events currently in-play or live across sports, and the Returns block confirms it is an aggregate count grouped by sport. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling live-event tools like pinnacle_sport_matchups_live or pointsbet_sports_inplay, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Summary of events currently in-play / live' plus the grouped-count return shape implies this is for high-level live-event counts rather than detailed match data. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the many sibling live-score/matchup tools, nor does it state exclusions. The auth note is useful but is not usage-selection guidance.

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