tab_sport

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format and that it includes pseudo-sports, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or the effect of the jurisdiction parameter on behavior. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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 plus a clear return format and an example. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose and return structure but fails to document jurisdiction or possible sport values, leaving gaps. It is minimally adequate.

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?

Parameters have 0% schema description coverage. The description vaguely implies 'sport' is a name via the example 'AFL Football' but does not explain the format or valid values. The jurisdiction parameter is entirely omitted. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names.

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 it retrieves a single sport by name along with its competitions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tab_sports (plural) by specifying 'One sport'. It also mentions handling of racing-adjacent pseudo-sports, adding uniqueness.

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?

While it implies use for a specific sport, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tab_sports for listing all sports, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is only vaguely implied.

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