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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: points are stored only when the line moves, and it includes an 'information only, not betting advice' disclaimer. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. The primary result (line-movement series, oldest first, bookmaker counts) is front-loaded, followed by data-sparsity and usage notes. Every sentence 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 read-only, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return shape, ordering, filtering, pagination, data-sparsity behavior, and plan requirement. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 all five parameters are documented. The description references from/to and cursor but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool returns every UFCalendar consensus odds point for one bout, oldest first, with the number of sportsbooks backing each point. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_fight_odds, which presumably return current odds, by focusing on the historical line-movement series.

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?

It mentions narrowing with from/to dates and cursor pagination, which guides invocation. It also notes 'Pro plans and up' as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with current-odds tools or state when to avoid using it, so the usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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