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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: in-play quotes included, books not quoting since kickoff omitted, returns available:false with no charge when odds aren't posted, fallback behavior, and that final events include result grading from pre-kickoff close. This goes well beyond annotations and helps the agent predict outcomes.

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 well-structured paragraph with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers in-play behavior, defaults, alternatives, result grading, availability handling, fallback logic, and a pointer to get_odds_history. Every sentence earns its place; the density is justified by the tool's complexity and edge cases.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema present, multiple edge cases), the description is remarkably complete. It addresses when odds are unavailable, fallback behavior, result grading, and the inclusion of fair_price/consensus for certain sports. With an output schema available and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% (all three parameters documented), so the baseline is 3. However, the description enriches parameter understanding: it explains that bookmaker defaults to pinnacle, that 'all' or comma-separated lists are accepted, the meaning of include_alts (alternate spread/total rungs), and the fallback behavior tied to bookmaker. It also clarifies that omitting bookmaker triggers fallback logic while explicit 'pinnacle' does not. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get current betting odds for an event' and then details per-bookmaker lines and last-updated time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing to get_odds_history for line movement, and by covering in-play quotes and result grading. This clearly separates it from other odds-related tools like get_period_odds.

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 explicit usage guidance: bookmaker defaults to pinnacle, allows 'all' or comma-separated lists, explains include_alts for alternates, and details fallback behavior when Pinnacle hasn't posted (fallback to best-covered other book with response fields). It also states that get_odds_history should be used for line movement over time, giving a clear alternative. No ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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