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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context: it discloses that unpriced bouts return nulls, book identities are never exposed, and it lists the exact data points (current, opening, closing lines and market movement with book counts). This goes beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent set expectations.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence (plus a short disclaimer). It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key output components. There is no redundancy or wasted words, though it could be slightly tighter by trimming 'Information only, not betting advice' into the same sentence, but it is still efficient.

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, the description must explain what the agent will receive, and it does: current/opening/closing lines, market movement, book counts, nulls for unpriced bouts, and the policy on book identities. It also includes a usage disclaimer. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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% for the single 'event' parameter, which already explains it accepts a slug or numeric id. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter or add syntax details, so it adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'consensus odds line for every bout on one card.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fight_odds (single bout) and get_odds_history (history) by focusing on the card-level consensus line in card order.

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 for obtaining odds across an entire card, and it adds a caution that it is 'Information only, not betting advice.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for a single fight, use get_fight_odds). The scope is clear, but explicit routing to siblings is missing.

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