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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real substance: the ordering guarantee (start order) and an explicit scope boundary that the board excludes chances while linking each game to its page where those numbers live. What it does not say is how the 'today and tomorrow' window is computed or what happens when the board is empty.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the time window and ordering rule, then the field inventory, then the deliberate exclusion. Nothing is padded or repeated, and the exclusion sentence earns its place by preventing a wrong-tool call.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the row fields and the ordering, plus pointing to the game page for numbers it omits. For a two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations, that is close to sufficient; only the timezone basis of 'today and tomorrow' and empty-result behavior are unaddressed.

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%, with limit and the sport enum both fully documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description's time-window framing gives useful context for what a row count covers, but it adds no syntax or semantics for either parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the resource (CrystlQuant's board), the time window (today and tomorrow), and the exact payload (matchup, start time, pick, game link) in start order. That is far more specific than the title, and the note that chances/gaps live on the game page implicitly separates it from gap- or odds-oriented siblings, though no sibling is named outright.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'what's on the board today', and the closing sentence hints that anything involving chances or gaps belongs elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative tools (find_game, biggest_gaps), and no stated prerequisites.

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