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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the response shows a scan time and a link to the game page, and prices may have moved since the scan. That staleness caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the freshness caveat is placed last where it reads as a qualifier. The naming example ('Lions at Bears') largely duplicates the schema's own example, a minor redundancy.

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 need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the remaining agent needs: what is returned, the two query modes, the freshness caveat, and how to name the game.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the two modes: both sides on the consensus number versus asking which side the market favors, which clarifies how the line and favored parameters interact.

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 and scope: one game's moneyline, spread, or total, with the two output modes (both sides on the consensus number vs. the market's favored side) named directly. It is clearly distinguishable from multi-game or futures siblings, though it never names those siblings 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 (single-game line lookup) and gives input guidance on how to name the game, but never states when to prefer this over slate, futures_odds, player_prop, or past_game, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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