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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the value is a snapshot ('the highest price we saw') and it may be stale since the scan. It remains silent on the unusual free-text matching behavior the 'text' parameter implies.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope, and the enumerable examples (Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, NBA, college titles) earn their space by making 'futures' concrete. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted sentences.

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 shape needn't be described, and the annotations cover safety; the description supplies the one non-obvious trait, snapshot staleness. It is nearly complete, with only the free-text matching semantics left unaddressed.

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 four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description echoes the notions of 'team' and 'market' but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific resource (season-long futures) and exactly what is returned: the highest price seen on a team or the top of one futures market, plus a scan time. This clearly separates it from game_lines, player_prop, and slate, but it never names those siblings for contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer it over game_lines or player_prop. The only contextual note is a staleness caveat ('Prices may have moved since the scan'), which is a warning rather than routing advice.

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