Events

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

Annotations cover only readOnly/openWorld, so the description's additions carry real weight: zero token cost and explicit pagination behavior ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') are concrete traits an agent needs. It still says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, or whether results are empty vs. absent 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 compact sentences with no filler: what it returns, what it costs, and how to page. The highest-value facts (ids, free, paging) are front-loaded.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, cost, and paging adequately. It leaves return-shape details (id format, note field behavior implied by the limit description) to the schema and response.

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%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter already has its own documented meaning, including cursor and sport. The description's cursor note essentially restates the schema's 'next_cursor from the previous reply' wording, adding no new syntax or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the events of one sport with their ids') and immediately ties itself to the sibling it feeds ('for event_odds'), so an agent can separate it from sports and event_odds without opening schemas.

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?

'for event_odds' establishes the workflow context (fetch ids, then request odds) and 'Costs no tokens' signals it is cheap to call liberally. It never states when not to use it or what alternative exists, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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