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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: it guarantees 'Book identities are never exposed', states the data lifecycle (opening, current, closing once settled), and disclaims 'Information only, not betting advice.' It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this adds substantial context.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core resource, and each clause adds concrete information. There is no filler or redundancy; every part earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what the output contains: current, opening, closing lines, movement, and per-point price/probability details. It also provides the source of fight_id via schema. This is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes fight_id as a bout id from an event card. The description does not add any further parameter-specific semantics, so a 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 the resource (consensus odds line), scope (one bout), and enumerates the data elements included. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_event_odds by explicitly saying 'for one bout', so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 a single bout's odds, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent must infer when to use get_event_odds or get_odds_history based on sibling names; no explicit when-to-use guidance is provided.

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