list_events

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior. The description adds useful nuance: it returns open main lines by defaultable market/affiliate IDshare and warns that each local page refetches a metered snapshot. It does not contradict 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose; every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 no-output-schema tool, it explains the returned value, tells when not to use it, points to get_main_lines for follow-up, and notes pagination/metering. Minor gaps remain around exact response shape.

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 covers date, offset, and list IDs, and the description adds context for market/affiliate defaults and the sport/date scope. However, sport_id and pagination parameters are only implied; with 57% schema coverage the description could explain more.

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 first sentence clearly states what the tool returns ('event IDs and summaries') and its scope ('one sport and date'), which also sets it apart from list_futures.

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 warns against using it for futures or price quotes and directs the agent to use the returned event IDs with get_main_lines. This is concrete, actionable routing guidance.

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