get_all_bookmakers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose that results may be paginated (per page/per_page parameters), that filters can be applied, or what 'available' means (e.g., based on subscription tier). The behavioral traits beyond the schema are not surfaced.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Get all available bookmakers'). Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information. Structure is optimal.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling group, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination, filtering, or the meaning of 'availability,' which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description only covers a fraction of the tool's capabilities.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no additional parameter information. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, so this score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all available bookmakers scoped to the user's subscription. It uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Get all bookmakers') and adds a scoping qualifier ('within your subscription'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_premium_bookmakers or search_bookmakers_by_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?

The description implies usage when a user needs the full list of bookmakers available in their subscription, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., get_all_premium_bookmakers for premium bookmakers, or search_bookmakers_by_name for searching). This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks proactive differentiation.

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