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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: invalid inputs return a plain status without spending a check, every result leads with status and check_spent, re-wording information is provided, and games that already started still check against pre-start simulations. This is transparent about cost, output shape, and edge cases.

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 dense and information-rich with almost no wasted words. It is slightly long, but each sentence adds meaningful operational detail, so the length is justified.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and rich runtime behavior, the description is complete: it covers input format, output fields, error behavior, cost semantics, sports coverage, and time-edge handling. An agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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 single 'bet' parameter is 100% covered by the schema, and the description enriches it significantly with plain-text format guidance, a concrete example, and parlay handling semantics. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal example.

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 action ('Check a specific sports bet'), the resource (sports bets), and the evaluation method (thousands of play-by-play simulations). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from suggestion-oriented tools by stating it prices a bet the caller names and never suggests one.

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?

The description gives strong usage guidance: 'Call this first', explains there is no setup, and explicitly says not to use it for 'what should I bet tonight'. It provides failure behavior for missing/unrecognized bets, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools get_slate or get_usage by name.

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