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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior on top: unpriced bouts return nulls, the closing line only appears once a bout is settled, book identities are never exposed, and each line carries a book-count. It also states the data is informational rather than betting advice, which is a real framing constraint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core deliverable and every clause earns its place by enumerating return fields, null handling, and the identity policy. It is a single dense run-on sentence, which costs some readability, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema and only one input parameter, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly — line types, movement, book counts, prop markets, and null cases are all enumerated. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'event' parameter is documented as slug-preferred-or-id in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description only implies the event scope via 'one card' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('consensus odds line for every bout on one card, in card order') and pins the scope to a full card rather than a single fight, which separates it from siblings like get_fight_odds and get_odds_history. An agent can tell what it returns without opening anything else.

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 — read this when you want odds across an entire card — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no sibling is named as the alternative for per-fight odds (get_fight_odds) or line movement over time (get_odds_history). Minimum viable routing guidance.

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