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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the football-only cashout constraint and the aggregate nature of the result, but that constraint is also repeated in the include_cashout_info schema description, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the filtering and scope caveats. No filler, though the final sentence is thin on detail.

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, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers what the tool returns conceptually and the key filtering/cashout caveats, leaving only minor gaps such as pagination or result-size behavior.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only alludes to event narrowing and cashout scope, both of which are already in the schema descriptions, so 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('aggregate profit/loss position over matching orders') with an extra detail about the payoff grid per scoreline. This clearly distinguishes it from get_order (single order) and get_balance (account balance). It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives usable context: 'Narrow it to one event for a readable result' tells the agent when the unfiltered call is impractical, and the football-only caveat scopes cashout usage. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use the tool, so no 5.

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