tab_sports_next_to_go

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by documenting the return shape and the auth behavior: it works without a key and additional credentials unlock more data.

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: a one-line purpose statement, a return shape, and an auth note. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only feed with seven fully documented optional parameters, annotations, and an inline return format, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, response shape, and auth requirements; the only minor gap is the lack of guidance on how parameters interact or when to set them, but the schema covers their individual meanings.

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 all seven parameters with defaults and examples. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, but it also does not need to because the schema carries the burden.

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 a next-to-go sports feed returning sport events about to close, ordered by close time. It names the specific resource and ordering behavior, and the 'sports' phrasing distinguishes it from the similarly named racing feed tab_racing_next_to_go, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 description implies the tool is appropriate when the agent needs imminent sport events sorted by closing time, but it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The auth note is operational context, not usage routing guidance.

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