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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description adds useful behavioral context: the call is cheap, reflects the product's own board, and does not include prices. It also discloses the 'last catalog walk' timestamp as part of the response semantics, going beyond the structured 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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and then clarifying exclusions, each earning its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only coverage check with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, why you would call it, and what it does not include. The guidance about resolving sport filters adds practical context that makes the tool self-sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and none is missing.

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 exactly what the tool reports: live and pre-game fixture counts per sport plus the last catalog walk time. It explicitly distinguishes itself from an upsell meter and price-bearing tools, which differentiates it from siblings like get_live_odds and get_prematch_odds.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: call it first to decide whether a full board fetch is worth it, and to resolve a sport filter to a sport with fixtures. It also tells what it is not for ('not an upsell meter and carries no prices'), though it does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly.

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