theoddsapi_sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it states the call is FREE with no quota cost, warns that the returned shape is from vendor docs and unverified against a live response, mentions the top-level array structure, and requires the user's own API key. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures that are not present in the 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 well-structured with separate lines for purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth. It is front-loaded with the most important info. However, the 'Example: In-season competitions' line is ambiguous and adds little value, and the description could be tightened without losing content. Overall it is concise and every major clause 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 that this is a simple, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: return shape, auth requirement, quota impact, and a data quality caveat. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return example. Minor gaps include not clarifying the default filter behavior (in-season only) and the vague example, but these are covered in the schema.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'all' ('true also returns out-of-season competitions'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Example: In-season competitions,' which is somewhat vague and does not clarify the default behavior or the 'all' flag beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 that this tool returns every sport/competition with its key, and explicitly positions it as the starting point for getting the sport_key needed by other tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings like theoddsapi_odds and theoddsapi_events by emphasizing its role as the discovery entry point. However, it lacks a crisp verb like 'list' or 'get' in the opening statement, relying on 'Start here to get' to convey the action.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Start here to get the sport_key the other tools need.' It also mentions that the call costs no quota, which informs usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'start here' directive makes the usage context clear.

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