tab_sports

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 covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact return structure and the auth behavior, including that no key is required and that setting TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more. This is useful behavioral transparency, though the "unlocks more" claim is somewhat vague.

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 front-loaded: it states the core purpose, gives the return shape, and mentions auth requirements in three short sentences. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by including the return shape and field names. It also covers auth requirements, which is useful for an agent deciding whether credentials are needed. The description is adequate for a simple list-style tool, though the optional jurisdiction parameter and its effect on results are only clarified in the schema rather than in the description.

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 schema already documents the single optional jurisdiction parameter with 100% coverage, including its default value and meaning as "State jurisdiction." The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool as returning all sports offered, explicitly framing it as the "HATEOAS root for the sports tree." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tab_sport or tab_competition, which target specific levels of the hierarchy. The inline return shape further confirms the resource and its purpose.

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" gives clear context that this is the entry point for navigating sports, and "each linking to its competitions" shows how it connects to downstream tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the root concept is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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