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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotation by specifying default values for period and format, and by explaining that markets and bookmakers are optional filters. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is clear. Overall, it adds useful context without overstepping.

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 a compact single sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a clearly structured Args list. Each parameter is documented in one line with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional filters are grouped logically. There is no wasted verbiage.

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?

Considering the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all parameters with their defaults, allowed values, and example formats. It provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly without needing additional documentation. The absence of an output schema means the description need not describe return values, keeping it complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description is the sole documentation for parameters. It fully explains each parameter: event_id (from find_match/list_today_matches, with example format), markets (optional filter with allowed values), bookmakers (optional filter with keys), period (optional, full_time or half_time, default both), and format (odds format options). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of 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 starts with 'Get all current odds for a match across bookmakers,' which names a specific verb, resource (match odds), and scope (across bookmakers). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_opening_line and get_sharp_line by emphasizing 'current odds,' making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description mentions that event_id comes from 'find_match / list_today_matches,' providing clear sourcing guidance. It also clarifies which parameters are optional filters (markets, bookmakers, period, format). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_opening_line or get_sharp_line, though 'current odds' implies it. This is a minor gap preventing a 5.

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