sm_bookmakers

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

The description offers no behavioral details beyond listing. Since there are no annotations, it fails to disclose potential pagination, output structure, authentication requirements, or how the different modes (all, by_id, search, by_fixture) affect behavior. The only additional hint is that returned IDs are used with odds endpoints, but that is not transparency about this tool's own behavior.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds an important usage pointer. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, an enum, multiple modes), the description is far too minimal. It does not cover the meaning of the modes, how search works, or what the output contains. With no output schema, the agent is severely under-supported.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the 'id', 'mode', 'fixtureId', or 'searchQuery' parameters. The agent is left to infer semantics from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correctly using modes and filters.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'available bookmakers in SportMonks', making the primary function unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on odds, events, or standings, though it does not explicitly reference a sibling.

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 sentence 'Use bookmaker IDs with odds endpoints' provides clear integration context, telling the agent that this tool is a prerequisite for odds-related workflows. However, it does not specify when to prefer this over other listing tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of explicit alternative guidance.

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