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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 10-credit cost, the historical coverage window for odds, the play-by-play derivation of goalie starts, and an explicit content policy forbidding stake/payout math or sportsbook referrals. These are behavioral traits the structured fields cannot express.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by prerequisite, coverage caveats, cost, and policy in descending order of importance. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restating of the name, title, or schema.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and it still covers everything an agent needs: trigger, prerequisite and its source, data availability windows, cost, and the domain policy constraint. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by stating that game_id is required and specifying exactly which tools supply a valid value, which the schema does not say; the league parameter is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('everything about one game') and enumerates the returned payload: both teams' info, all betting odds, and starting goalies with time on ice. This cleanly differentiates it from siblings like get_odds, get_goalie_stats, and get_shifts, which each cover only one slice of that payload.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger, names the prerequisite (a game ID), and routes the agent to the correct sources for that ID (get_games or get_schedule). It also states availability boundaries — odds only from 2019-20 on, goalie starts only for played games — so the agent knows when the call is futile.

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