get_sports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core function and details. It wastes no words, clearly stating what the tool does, the sports covered, and the returned data fields. Every element earns its place.

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 (location-based sports event lookup), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and data fields but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output format. It meets the baseline for a simple query tool but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured information.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'q' documented as a location query. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 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's purpose: retrieving upcoming sports events for specific sports (football/soccer, cricket, golf) with location-based filtering. It specifies the data fields returned (stadium, country, tournament name, start time). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_alerts' or 'get_current_weather' which serve different domains.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to sibling tools that might overlap in functionality (like 'search_locations' for location data). The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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