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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: answers are quoted from the site itself and include a link to the source page, which tells the agent the output is grounded canonical text rather than generated prose.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the purpose and folds detail into a parenthetical list. Dense but not padded, and every clause carries information.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not describe return values. It supplies the domain coverage and provenance needed to invoke the tool correctly, leaving little 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%, so both parameters are documented structurally. The description does not explain the topic-key-vs-reader-words routing, though its parenthetical list of covered subjects loosely hints at valid lookup areas; this keeps it at the baseline.

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+resource (explains a betting term or site mechanics) and enumerates the content domains it covers, so the agent understands it is an explainer/lookup tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'ask' tool, which likely also answers questions.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: reach for it when a reader needs a betting term or site mechanic explained. There is no explicit when-not, no named alternative (e.g. 'use ask for generated analysis instead'), so the agent must infer the boundary from 'in the site's own words'.

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