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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantial context: the answer shape, the scan timestamp, a source link, ambiguity handling that returns choices for a follow-up ask, staleness of prices, and the explicit 'places no bets and gives no picks' disclaimer.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph led by the core purpose, then return shape, ambiguity behavior, and safety. Every clause carries information, though the question-type enumeration is dense and slightly long for a single-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still covers input style, ambiguity resolution, price staleness, and the no-betting disclaimer. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'question' parameter, including its 400-character limit and inline examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces 'one whole question ... plain English' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('ask') and resource (a sports betting price question) and enumerates the exact question classes it handles: best price by book, hedge math, parlay price, game board, past result, line movement. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from structured siblings like game_lines, calc, or past_game without opening schemas.

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 list of supported question types implies when the tool applies, but it never names a sibling as an alternative or states a when-not condition (e.g., use game_lines for a structured board lookup). Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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