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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the data represents the highest observed moneyline per side, includes the scan timestamp, and carries a staleness caveat ("Prices may have moved since the scan").

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the caveat about stale prices follows as supporting context, so nothing is wasted.

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-value shape needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a six-parameter, zero-required query tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs to choose and call it correctly.

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 the parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description echoes a couple of them (window options, league or team) but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema 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 and resource ("Lists the games in a window") plus the scope options (league or one team) and the distinctive payload (highest moneyline price per side with scan time). This clearly separates it from line-history or results siblings, though it never names a sibling (e.g. game_lines, past_game) to sharpen the boundary.

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 through the window vocabulary ("tonight, tomorrow, a weekday or a date") and the league/team scope, so an agent can infer the right call context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so an agent comparing against game_lines or past_game gets no routing help.

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