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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the operational lifecycle: opening the WebSocket, registering the event, reading the offer snapshot, and disconnecting. It also explains offer granularity, that back and lay are separate offers, and that prices are ordered best first and already on the tick schedule. These details materially improve invocation correctness.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value operational and workflow details. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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?

The tool has annotations covering safety and openness, an output schema covering return values, and 100% schema description coverage. The description adds the remaining critical context: WebSocket lifecycle, offer structure, price ordering, and the handoff to create_betslip.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds conceptual context about offers covering (sport, event_id, bet_type) triples, but it does not extend the meaning of limit or market_type beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the priced bet types on one event, with the stake available at each price.' It clearly scopes the operation to a single event and explains that offers are priced bet types, distinguishing it from broader event-listing siblings.

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 downstream usage context by instructing the agent to pass a returned bet_type verbatim to create_betslip and never construct one by hand. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as validate_bet_type or list_events, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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