tab_sports_next_to_go

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds auth requirements ('works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more'), the return shape ('Returns: {matches:[...]}'), and the ordering behavior. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, each adding a distinct piece of value: purpose, return format, and auth. No fluff, repetition, or extraneous details.

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 annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects of the tool: what it does, what it returns, and auth requirements. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke this read-only feed tool correctly.

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 description covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, but that is acceptable given the rich schema.

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 says 'Sport events about to close, ordered by close time (next-to-go sports feed)', which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from racing-specific siblings like tab_racing_next_to_go or general sports listing tools like tab_sports.

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 'next-to-go sports feed' clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need sport events about to close, ordered by close time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is unmistakable and sufficient for most agents.

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