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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is free, spends no check, and clarifies that no_slate/ungraded mean the game is not on the simulated slate rather than the bet was worded wrong. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct, non-redundant information: purpose, parameter usage, cost/necessity, and call contexts. The core definition is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, cost, relation to check_bet, and interpretation of related result codes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 covers 100% of the parameter and already documents the sport enum and the omit behavior. The description's 'Pass sport for one; omit it for all' restates the schema without adding new meaning, so the 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?

States a specific, measurable purpose: identify which of four named leagues have a checkable slate, defined as at least one simulated game not started. The explicit league list and the definition of 'checkable' distinguish it clearly from siblings like check_bet.

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 tells the agent when to call it ('Call it to answer "what can be checked today"') and when not to, noting that check_bet reports a missing slate itself at no cost. It also names concrete triggers: after a no_slate or ungraded result.

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