list_sports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'list' verb implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses that output includes live and upcoming event counts. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or describe any edge-case behavior, though these gaps are minor for a simple list tool.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The core function and output content are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage directive is placed in the second, making it immediately actionable for an agent.

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, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description provides enough detail about what the tool returns (sports with live/upcoming counts) and how to use it (call first for valid ids). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema trivially covers semantics. The description adds value by explaining that the output provides valid sport ids for use in other tools, which implicitly clarifies why no parameters are needed for this discovery call.

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's verb ('List'), resource ('sports SharpAPI covers'), and distinguishing output (live and upcoming event counts). It also frames the tool's role as the discovery entry point for valid sport ids, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events or list_sportsbooks.

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 guidance 'Call this first to discover valid sport ids for the other tools' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and positions it before the sibling tools. It does not name specific alternatives, but for a zero-parameter discovery tool, the sequencing instruction provides sufficient usage context.

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