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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders behavioral transparency. It discloses key traits: the registry is 'a directory, not live coverage', the output includes a best-first sorted table with odds, implied probability, vig, and profit differential, and that books are 'ranked strictly by price — never by whether they pay VoxOdds a commission.' It also conditions usage on a 'configured live sportsbook feed.' This is rich and prevents misuse.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, limitation, return contents, usage trigger, ranking policy, and alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary function and reads naturally without redundant filler. Length is justified given the complexity and absence of annotations.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are partially covered elsewhere, but the description already explains the return components. The main gap is input parameter semantics (event, side, sport), which are not described in the schema or description. Otherwise, the description covers purpose, alternatives, preconditions, and behavioral nuances, making it largely complete for such a complex tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'event', 'side', or 'sport'. While 'specific bet' implies event and side, there is no guidance on value formats, meaning of 'side', or the odd default 'sport=upcoming'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Find which bookmaker pays the most for one specific bet.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with check_bet and noting the directory-vs-live-coverage limitation. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user has already decided WHAT to bet and wants the best price, or asks 'where should I bet this'.' It also names an alternative: 'Use check_bet instead when the user still needs to know whether the bet is worth making at all.' The exclusion is clear and actionable.

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