tab_recommendation_featured

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 valuable behavioral context: the 404 when category isn't featured, the response shape, and the auth behavior (works without key, more with credentials). This goes beyond annotations and provides meaningful details.

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: purpose statement, error behavior, return format, example, and auth note each on separate lines. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. The front-loaded purpose and clear sections make it easy to scan.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return structure, example, error case, and auth details. It lacks mention of pagination or limits, but the tool's scope (featured items) suggests these may not be needed. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for expected use cases.

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% with both parameters described in detail (including 'Pass raw spaces' and default for jurisdiction). The description's example usage adds a concrete invocation but doesn't introduce semantics beyond what the schema already provides. As per rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 returns 'Featured items for one recommendation category' with concrete examples (Jockey Challenge, Racing Extras). The 404 behavior and return structure further specify the tool's action and scope. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like tab_featured_events, the focused phrasing ('one recommendation category') differentiates it sufficiently.

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 by example (category parameter) and notes the 404 case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The auth note ('works without a key') is helpful but not a usage guideline relative to other tools. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about alternatives.

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