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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioural context on top: concise returns up to 5 alternate lines centred on the main line while detailed returns all, and 'one API request per call' flags the per-call cost. It does not disclose error/empty-book behaviour or payload shape (no output schema).

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?

Front-loaded with the core value, then periods, verbosity, id sourcing, and mode consistency in tightly packed clauses. No filler sentences; every line earns 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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the shape of results (periods, line counts, concise vs detailed) and the cost of a call. Minor omissions remain, such as whether missing markets/periods are silently dropped, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: mode (live vs prematch, must match the discovery call), periods (0 = full match, 1 = first half/period, and so on), response_format (concise = 5 lines, detailed = all), and markets (team totals only on request). This adds meaning well beyond the bare enum and integer constraints.

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 verb+resource: 'Current Pinnacle prices for one event' with the exact market set (moneyline, spreads, totals, team totals). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_events (id lookup) and get_prematch_lines (prematch-only board).

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 concrete routing: event ids come from get_events or get_odds_drops, and 'pass the same mode you used to find the event' since live and prematch are separate boards. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_prematch_lines, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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