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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them since it only validates and mints an ephemeral planning token rather than booking. On top of that it discloses two non-schema facts an agent needs: the plan_id has a 10-minute lifetime and the call costs 0 action credits. It stops short of saying what happens to the plan_id on expiry or whether it can be reused.

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?

Two dense sentences with the validation scope and downstream consumer front-loaded, followed by return statuses and cost. Nothing is redundant or padding, and the parenthetical detail on pick composition is compactly packaged.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, yet the description still enumerates the status values that drive agent branching, and it covers cost and plan lifetime. The remaining hole is guidance on when this validation step should be skipped in favor of another sibling operation.

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 bookmaker examples, the strict default and the 1% odds tolerance are already documented in structured fields. The description restates the pick shapes (team names or event_ids, canonical market/outcome, optional line/odds) and the 50-item cap without adding format or syntax guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (validate, create plan_id) against a named resource (1 to 50 games) on a target bookmaker, and names the downstream consumer 'mbc_book_code', which separates it from conversion tools like mbc_convert_code. The per-game status list further pins down what the output actually represents.

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 establishes clear context: it is the validation step that produces a short-lived plan_id consumed by mbc_book_code, with a stated 1-50 input bound. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative sibling (e.g. a conversion or bulk path), so 4 rather than 5.

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