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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real operational context beyond them: a 10-minute refresh cadence, the prediction-market source, and $1.8B+ traded as a liquidity signal. It also discloses the archived state and that the response is just an archive notice. No rate limits or auth requirements are mentioned, but the added value is substantial.

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-loading the archive notice is good structure, but the long enumeration of live odds categories is largely obsolete once the tool self-declares that it returns only an archive notice, and it actively pulls the agent toward calling a dead tool. The content is dense but internally at odds with its own opening clause.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description supplies the critical lifecycle context (ended 2026-07-19, archive-notice response) plus coverage and freshness details. The gap is that it never redirects to a live alternative, leaving an agent uncertain what to do with World Cup questions after the archive date.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The enumerated return categories relate to output rather than inputs, which the existing output schema already covers.

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 and resource ('Get live World Cup 2026 odds') and enumerates the exact content it covers (winner probabilities, group winners, props, specials, 1/X/2 prices). It also leads with its archived status, which is the single most important distinguishing fact. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it overlaps with (get_world_cup_brief, get_world_cup_matchday, get_market_odds), so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

'Call this for any question about World Cup 2026 favorites, teams, groups, or matches' gives an intended scope, but it is immediately undermined by the leading archival notice saying the tool only returns an archive notice. No alternative tool is named for live World Cup questions, so an agent has to guess whether the sibling get_world_cup_brief or get_market_odds supersedes it.

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