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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral context: that an empty board can be a deliberate withholding when upstream goes quiet past a threshold, and that REST responses carry X-Data-Status and X-Data-Age-Ms to distinguish fresh/stale/unknown. This adds substantial interpretative value for the agent.

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 front-loaded with the core question and then answers when to call and how to interpret results. It is well structured and nearly every sentence adds value, though the final sentence ('This tool is how you find out which of the two it was') is somewhat redundant given the preceding explanation.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It describes the reported signals and header semantics well, but does not specify exact return field names or types. For this diagnostic use case that is largely sufficient, though slightly incomplete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly does not waste space restating an empty 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 diagnostic verb and resource: checking whether the odds feed is healthy, and enumerates the exact signals reported (upstream status, live event count, last write freshness, prematch board serving). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_event_odds or get_prematch_lines, which retrieve odds rather than report feed health.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this when odds look stale or a board came back empty.' It also clarifies a common false alarm (empty board not necessarily an outage). However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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