list_sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior ('Sports without matches are not listed', match counts in the result), but it is muddled as to whether both Live and Prematch are returned or only the line_type selected, which the enum/default implies is a single value.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scoping constraint and the 'start here' guidance both front-loaded. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description sensibly names what comes back (sport_id, match counts). It is nearly sufficient for a two-parameter read-only discovery tool, with only the live-vs-prematch coverage ambiguity left unresolved.

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 both the esports and line_type parameters are already fully documented with enums and defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes the live/prematch notion and never mentions esports mode, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the sports') scoped to 'Live or Prematch matches right now, with match counts', which is far more precise than the bare tool name. The sentence 'Start here to get a sport_id' positions it in the workflow relative to siblings like list_tournaments and get_match.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the entry point ('Start here to get a sport_id'), which tells the agent when to reach for it before deeper match tools. It does not name a competing sibling or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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