tab_sport

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return structure (id, name, competitions) and auth requirements (works without a key, unlocked with client credentials). It also notes the inclusion of pseudo-sports. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, and the description complements them without contradiction.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose, one for return shape, one example, and one for auth. Every sentence provides essential information without waste, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 lookup tool, the description covers purpose, input example, return format, and auth, making it self-contained. With no output schema, including the return shape in the description is especially useful. The note about pseudo-sports adds completeness for edge 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%, so both parameters (sport, jurisdiction) are documented. The description adds an example of the sport parameter ('AFL Football') and reinforces that raw spaces are used, but this largely mirrors schema information. It does not add significant new semantic meaning, keeping the score at baseline.

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 a single sport by name along with its competitions, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes coverage of racing-adjacent pseudo-sports, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tab_sports, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to get a sport's competitions), and the example provides a concrete use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives such as tab_sports or tab_competition, leaving usage implied rather than clearly outlined.

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