tab_multi_builder

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful auth context: it works without a key, and TAB_CLIENT_ID, TAB_CLIENT_SECRET, or TAB_REFRESH_TOKEN can unlock more. This does not contradict the annotations and provides beyond-schema operational detail.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, then auth. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns snippet usefully indicates the shape (id, name, sportName, displayName, plus multi-builder markets) and confirms what the agent will receive. The purpose and auth behavior are covered. A fuller explanation of what 'multi-builder markets' contains would strengthen it, but the parameters are simple and annotations cover safety.

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 sport and jurisdiction are already described with meaningful detail in the input schema. The description only reinforces the 'one sport' notion and adds no new parameter syntax, format, or allowed-value guidance. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 identifies the resource as 'multi-builder items for one sport' and clarifies they are suggested legs/combinations for building multis. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the Returns line makes the operation clear. It is distinguishable from generic match/market tools, though it does not name a sibling tool.

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 clearly states the scope: the tool returns multi-builder items for one sport, so an agent can choose it when needing multi-builder suggestions for a specific sport. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection.

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