tab_trending_props

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value with the auth behavior: 'works without a key; TAB_CLIENT_ID or TAB_CLIENT_SECRET unlocks more if set.' This reveals additional context beyond annotations, but does not clarify what 'unlocks more' means (e.g., data richness, rate limits). 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 extremely concise, containing just three lines: purpose, return shape, and auth. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—identifying the resource, hinting at the output structure, and clarifying authentication. No wasted words 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing example fields, but it leaves gaps: the meaning of 'trending' is undefined, and no details on result limits, pagination, or how the jurisdiction parameter affects results. The tool is simple (one optional param), but the description could more fully address the response and parameter impact to be complete.

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 only parameter, 'jurisdiction', is fully described in the schema as 'State jurisdiction.' The description does not add any additional meaning, such as allowed values, impact on results, or examples. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds nothing beyond that baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it returns 'Trending sports propositions / bets across the book' and provides a partial return shape. The verb 'trending' is specific, and 'across the book' distinguishes it from sport-specific or event-specific tools. The mention of fields like sportName and matchId further clarifies the resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., tab_match_markets, tab_featured_events). The auth note implies prerequisites but does not address alternative usage contexts or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is for overarching trending props without differentiation.

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