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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: betslips are short-lived, carry no price at creation, and wait_seconds controls polling for the quote, which explains the non-obvious latency behavior.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by lifecycle and parameter guidance. Efficient, though the bet_type-from-list_event_offers point slightly duplicates the schema description.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to cover the lifecycle and usage context it does cover well (one-selection scope, no cost, expiry, polling). Minor gaps remain on expiry duration and failure behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 parameters are already documented (including bet_type 'copied from list_event_offers' and wait_seconds 'Poll up to this long for a quote'). The description largely restates the bet_type and wait_seconds semantics rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (create) plus resource (betslip) and scopes it precisely as 'register interest in one selection so it gets quoted'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like place_order and get_betslip.

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?

Explicitly frames it as 'step one of two', notes that a betslip 'costs nothing and commits nothing, but an order needs one', and instructs taking bet_type verbatim from list_event_offers. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite context, though it never names place_order as the follow-up tool.

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