tab_sports_results

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it works without a key, and setting TAB_CLIENT_ID, TAB_CLIENT_SECRET, or TAB_REFRESH_TOKEN unlocks more data. It also provides the return shape, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 summary, and an auth note. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what the tool returns, that it is read-only, and the auth requirements. It could optionally clarify what 'recently resulted' means in terms of time window and what 'unlocks more' includes, but these are minor gaps.

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 single parameter 'jurisdiction' is fully described in the schema as 'State jurisdiction' with a default of NSW, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description does not add extra detail about valid jurisdictions or how the parameter affects results, but it does not need to compensate heavily due to 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific resource: recently resulted sport events with final scores and settled markets. This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tab_sports_next_to_go and tab_live_events_summary, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'recently resulted' implies the tool is for fetching final results rather than live or upcoming events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative result/sport tools, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred alternatives.

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