tab_sports_results

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool returns results and settled markets, but omits details on data freshness, authorization, or rate limits. The return structure is provided, which adds some value, but the description lacks depth for critical behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the return structure. Every word earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It states what the tool returns but fails to explain the jurisdiction parameter or the time range for 'recently'. An agent may need supplementary knowledge to use it 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 has one parameter 'jurisdiction' with no description, and the tool description does not explain it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning, but it fails to do so. An agent cannot determine what 'jurisdiction' specifies.

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 the tool returns 'recently resulted sport events with final scores / settled markets' and provides the return structure. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tab_sports_next_to_go' (upcoming events) and 'tab_sport' (single sport).

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 usage for completed events via 'resulted' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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