Get Sports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, however: no note on the return set (all sports vs. a subset), no ordering, no sense of how large the payload is, and no indication of how it differs from get_all_sports.

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 words are technically waste-free, but for a tool that sits in a dense cluster of near-identical siblings this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single phrase is front-loaded yet carries almost no 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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what is returned and how it relates to get_all_sports and get_sports_events. It does neither, leaving the agent with an unresolved ambiguity in a crowded namespace.

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 takes zero parameters with full schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; nothing here is misleading.

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?

"Fetch sports data" only restates the tool name in slightly different words; it never says what a "sport" object is or what this returns. Crucially, siblings include get_all_sports, get_sport_by_slug, get_sports_events, get_sports_teams and get_sports_players, and the description gives no basis for choosing this tool over get_all_sports, which appears to cover the same resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of any alternative among the many sports-related siblings. An agent has to guess whether this is a list-all endpoint or something narrower than get_all_sports.

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