get_highlighted_events

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

The description gives no behavioral details beyond 'Fetch'. With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description to disclose behavior such as filtering, defaults, or response structure. The term 'highlighted' is undefined, and there is no mention of whether the tool returns a list, how pagination works, or any side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the core action. It is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative value for conciseness, but this still earns a high score for structure.

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 has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what highlighted events are, how the parameters interact, or what the response looks like. A more complete description would clarify the filtering context and default behavior.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions and defaults (e.g., 'st' sport type, 'limit' limit results). The description adds no additional parameter context, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for any ambiguity 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch highlighted events'. It is clear this tool retrieves a subset of events, but it does not define what 'highlighted' means or differentiate it from sibling tools like get_events or get_detailed_events. The resource is identifiable but the distinction is left to the name.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_events or get_competitions. The description does not explain the intended scenario or how 'highlighted' relates to other event categories.

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