tab_multi_builder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the return structure and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization needs, or whether data is cached. The description does not mention any side effects or restrictions.

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 with two sentences: first states the purpose, second outlines the return fields. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the return format could be more detailed.

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 no output schema, the return structure is partially described but not fully (e.g., nested multi-builder markets). Two parameters with no explanations and no behavioral disclosure make the description incomplete for a data retrieval tool.

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 has two parameters (sport and jurisdiction) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain these parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic types and defaults. No enums or formatting guidance provided.

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 multi-builder items (suggested legs/combinations) for a sport. It uses specific verb 'suggests' and resource 'multi-builder items', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tab_match, tab_racing_race, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other multi-builder or market tools). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implies usage for building multis but lacks explicit context.

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