sportsdb_get_sports_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It only states 'list all available sports' with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as caching, idempotency, or result format. For a parameterless list, this is acceptable but minimal.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero superfluous information. It fully conveys the tool's purpose in minimal space.

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?

For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could hint at the output format (e.g., 'including sport IDs and names'), but the current text covers the essential usage context.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. According to guidelines, 0 params defaults to baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none, but it does not provide additional value either.

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 the resource 'all available sports', and specifies the source 'TheSportsDB'. This uniquely identifies the tool among many sports-related siblings (e.g., sportsdb_get_event_details, sportsdb_get_league_list) as a top-level listing of sports.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the tool is simple and may be foundational, there is no mention that it should be used first to obtain sport IDs for other sportsdb tools. The absence of contextual comparison leaves room for ambiguity.

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