tab_sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: authentication requirements, optional key behavior, and the exact response shape with nested self links.

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?

Three short sentences each provide distinct value: scope and navigation role, exact return shape, and authentication behavior. There is no filler and the most important information 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?

The tool is low-complexity with no required parameters and no output schema, so stating the return shape and auth requirements is largely sufficient. It could optionally explain how the jurisdiction parameter affects the returned sports list, but that omission is partially compensated by the schema.

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 only parameter, jurisdiction, is already documented in the input schema with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level nuance, but none is needed because the schema handles it.

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 identifies this as the HATEOAS root of the sports tree, returning all offered sports with links to competitions. This distinguishes it from leaf-level siblings like tab_sport and other sports-listing tools by emphasizing aggregate/root behavior.

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 'HATEOAS root for the sports tree' implies it should be used as the entry point for navigating sports to competitions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named.

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