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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral detail. It does disclose the branching default behavior (no `deporte` returns the sport list instead of matches), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or how odds are structured beyond '1X2/ganador'.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second front-loads the default-mode caveat. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

For a read-only, three-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both return shapes (sports list vs. matches with odds) and the filter axes. What is missing is any note on result size/pagination or the relationship to the sibling tools.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the sport ids and the 1-100 limit. The description mostly restates the `deporte` default behavior and adds only the odds-format hint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names the concrete resource and payload: a sports betting predictions board with bettable matches and their 1X2/winner odds, plus the fallback behavior when no `deporte` is given. The name 'prode' alone is opaque, so the description does the essential disambiguation work. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings `juegos` and `verificar-jugada`, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a concrete call pattern: invoke with no `deporte` to first discover which sports have matches, then presumably filter. That is actionable usage context rather than mere implication. There is no statement of when to prefer this over `verificar-jugada` or `juegos`, so no exclusions are documented.

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