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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the returned fields, their units, and the meaning of direction and probability-shift metrics. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or data freshness, but the retrieval-like behavior is evident and there is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage scenarios, input modes, and return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the long return-field sentence earns its length by explaining the key output metrics.

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?

For a read-style analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient completeness: it explains what is returned, the units, the input selection modes, and the questions it supports. The remaining gaps, such as explicit safety labeling, are minor given the tool's evident read-only nature.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful selection semantics by explaining that prop_id targets one prop while player with optional stat or event_id targets all of that player's props, going beyond the schema text.

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 clearly states the resource and operation: line movement from open to current for a prop, including the exact questions it answers. It is specific enough to identify the tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like prop_history or recent_changes.

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?

It gives clear usage context by naming the questions the tool answers and explaining the two input modes: a single prop_id or a player with optional stat/event_id filters. It does not state when to avoid this tool or point to sibling alternatives, so it falls short of full when-to-use guidance.

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