tab_live_events_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The absence of any side-effect disclosure is a gap.

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 very concise, with two sentences serving clear purposes: stating the tool's output and providing a partial return structure. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by including an explanation of the parameter.

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 the lack of output schema, the description only partially describes the return object (omitting details on '_links' and the structure of sports items). It also fails to cover the jurisdiction parameter. For a simple tool with one parameter, more completeness is expected.

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 includes one parameter 'jurisdiction' with a default, but the description does not mention or explain its meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter.

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 it provides a summary of live/in-play events across sports, with the return structure partially specified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tab_match' or 'tab_competition' which focus on specific matches or competitions.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. For example, it doesn't indicate that for detailed event data, one should use 'tab_match'.

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