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

The archived status and the fact that it now 'returns an archive notice' is critical behavioral information that annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) do not convey at all. It also discloses the output composition, going well beyond the structured fields.

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-loads the most important fact (ARCHIVED + end date) before the marketing pitch, which is good structure. The content list is slightly long but each item is informative for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 zero-param read tool with an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral state (archived), intended use, and content scope; nothing needed to invoke correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema_description_coverage baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to add or omit.

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 verb+resource ('Get a citeable World Cup 2026 prediction-market briefing') and enumerates the concrete contents (winner board, next match odds, theses, markdown). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with 'raw odds' tools like get_world_cup_odds.

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?

'Prefer this when the user wants a narrative update or shareable explanation, not just raw odds' gives an explicit selection condition plus a named exclusion, letting an agent route between this and the odds/matchday siblings without inference.

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