get_menu

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it describes the shape of the returned hierarchy and the match counts per level. It omits any note on caching, freshness, or rate limits for a live-data endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the two mode-specific behaviors. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return structure and does so (sports with match counts, countries, tournaments with ids). Combined with full schema coverage for the three parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so all three parameters (esports, sport_id, line_type) are already documented including the enum values. The description restates the sport_id branching behavior but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('navigation tree sport -> country -> tournament') and immediately scopes it by line type. The two-mode behavior (whole tree vs. one sport's subtree) makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling flat listers like list_sports, list_countries and list_tournaments.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream use case: use the returned tournament_id for list_live_matches / list_prematch_matches, and explains the with/without sport_id selection condition. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over list_tournaments or list_countries, which overlap in scope.

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