List Handigraphs Stats API resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only and open-ended nature is covered. The description adds the context that resources are 'live' and 'public', which slightly expands on the annotations, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination, response format, or what happens when no sport filter is provided.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and object, and every word adds meaning. Very concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It lacks explanation of the optional parameter's behavior and does not describe the response shape (no output schema). The openWorldHint and readOnlyHint provide some context, but the missing parameter semantics and output details keep it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'sport' parameter at all. With no compensation, the agent has no idea how to use the optional sport parameter, what values to pass, or whether it filters the list. This is a significant gap since the schema provides only the parameter name and length constraints.

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 states a specific action 'List' on a specific resource type ('live sports and stats resources') and scopes it to 'public Handigraphs discovery'. This clearly distinguishes from siblings 'describe_resource' and 'query_stats', which describe or query resources rather than list them.

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 alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving implications that you use it to list resources, but it does not mention when to prefer it over describe_resource or query_stats, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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