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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context—'current', 'compact', 'no period structure', and the optional market_type filter—but it does not disclose response format, default behavior when no filter is supplied, or pagination limits. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with the optional parameter, which mirrors how an agent would read it top-down. No filler or redundant 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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the core use case, but with no output schema the description should ideally say more about the shape of the returned lines—e.g., whether both sides are included, what fields appear, or how 'compact' affects the structure. Without that, an agent can select the tool confidently but may be uncertain about parsing the result.

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 100%, so event_id and market_type are already well documented. The description repeats the enum values and calls market_type a 'filter', which aligns with the schema's 'Limit the response to one market type' but adds no new semantic detail. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('one prematch event'), a concrete data type ('current full-game lines'), and a defining characteristic ('no period structure'), making it clear what the tool returns. It also names the optional market types, further specifying scope. This distinguishes it from live-odds or period-based sibling tools even without naming them explicitly.

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 implies usage for a single prematch event with compact full-game lines, and the 'no period structure' note hints at when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer get_prematch_odds or get_live_odds, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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