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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value with 'asks for a price and never places a bet', the plan requirement, the one-API-call cost, and the underlying endpoint. It does not say what happens when no bookmaker will price a leg or whether partial pricing is returned.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then safety, then cost/plan, then endpoint. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 description does gesture at the return shape ('price ... at each bookmaker that will price it, with a fair quote'), and it covers plan gating and call accounting. It stops short of describing the response structure or behavior for legs a bookmaker refuses to price, which is the main remaining gap for a 5-parameter pricing tool.

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 schema already documents sport, home, away, books, and each leg field. The description only restates the legs constraint ('two or more player-prop legs from one game') and the books default ('Leave it off for every bookmaker that prices it' — which is in the schema too), adding essentially nothing beyond it.

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: 'Live price for a same-game multi (parlay) of two or more player-prop legs from one game.' The scope (Australian bookmakers, per-book pricing plus a fair quote) makes it naturally distinguishable from siblings like get_odds or get_player_props, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource itself (price a multi-leg player-prop bet), and the plan gate ('Needs the Pro plan ($79 AUD a month) or higher') plus the books-omission default give practical context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-a-sibling guidance — e.g. nothing says to use get_player_props for single legs or get_best_price for single bets.

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