search_bookmakers_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search bookmakers by name.' It does not reveal behaviors such as whether the search is exact or partial, pagination behavior, or what happens with the 'include' and 'select' parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 and is concise, but it is so minimal that it sacrifices informativeness. It could provide more value without being verbose, such as mentioning the search type or pagination defaults.

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 7 parameters and is a search function among many similar search tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain key aspects like whether the name search is case-insensitive, how includes/select work, or that pagination is available. The schema covers parameter details, but the description should summarize the overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; for example, 'name' is simply 'Search query' in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 action (search) and resource (bookmakers), with the qualifier 'by name,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_all_bookmakers' that presumably returns all bookmakers without filtering. This provides adequate purpose clarity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_bookmakers' or other search tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or any context about its appropriate application.

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