tab_multi_builder

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: auth behavior (works without a key, credentials unlock more) and the return shape. No contradictions detected.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The return and auth notes are each one line, with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, return shape, and auth requirements. It could be more precise about what 'multi-builder markets' entails and what jurisdiction values are valid, but it is adequate for invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The schema already documents sport with examples and jurisdiction with 'State jurisdiction.' The tool description does not add much beyond this, so 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 identifies the resource: multi-builder items for a single sport, including suggested legs/combinations. It also specifies the return fields. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'list', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 the tool is for retrieving multi-builder suggestions per sport, giving context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing to tab_match_markets or tab_recommendation_featured.

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