tab_sport

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it works without a key, credentials optionally unlock more data, and it returns a specific object shape. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose, return shape, example, and auth are each given in focused sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by declaring the return structure, giving an example, and explaining auth requirements. The main missing piece is an explicit pointer to sibling tools like tab_sports for list-style lookups, but the description is otherwise sufficient for a two-parameter read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the sport and jurisdiction parameters. The description reinforces the sport parameter with an AFL Football example but adds little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 one sport by name along with its competitions, which distinguishes it from the plural sibling tab_sports and other sport-specific tools. It also discloses the special handling of racing-adjacent pseudo-sports, so an agent knows the exact resource and scope without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'One sport by name...' and the example imply this tool is for retrieving a single sport's competitions, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent must infer that tab_sports is for listing sports and that competition-specific tools like tab_competition are for other granularity.

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