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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the call 'Costs no API quota', which materially affects how freely an agent may invoke it. It does not, however, describe the shape of returned results or any rate/latency behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines scope, the second defines the use case and a cost constraint. Every clause carries information and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally would hint at the return shape (e.g., doc snippets or references). Scope, intended use, and quota cost are all present, making it largely adequate for a simple two-parameter search tool.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by enumerating the topic space a query can target, but says nothing about the `query` string's role/length or the `limit` parameter and its default of 3 / maximum of 5.

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 (Search) plus the exact resource domain (pinnodds API reference) and enumerates the covered content: endpoints, parameters, rate limits, plans, WebSocket/SSE feeds, sport ids, market shapes. This cleanly separates it from the data-fetching siblings like get_event_odds or get_events.

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 an explicit selection rule: use it for 'how do I…' questions about the API itself 'rather than about odds'. That excludes the odds/data siblings by category, though it does not name any specific sibling tool or state any prerequisite for use.

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