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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains that a write happens (append-only audited receipt) only when your_probability is passed, that it refuses unresolvable events, that verdicts are arithmetic rather than model output, and that it is research rather than financial advice. This explains why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 action, but the middle is dense with interleaved parentheticals and asides (odds examples, receipt logging, disclaimers) that make it heavier than necessary.

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 structure needn't be explained, yet the description usefully previews the references and EV verdict fields. Combined with the write-behavior disclosure, an agent has everything needed to 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: accepted odds formats (decimal/american/fractional), the 0-1 range and dependency of your_probability on forecaster_id. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 action (pre-bet EV check) on a specific resource (a bet on any bookmaker) and names its inputs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_market_odds, find_best_price, and submit_forecast.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('run this BEFORE the user places any bet, on any bookmaker') and states the precondition that logging your estimate requires forecaster_id. It does not, however, name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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