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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default market/affiliate selections and the important note that each page refetch hits a metered snapshot, which implies request cost. It stops short of stating rate limits or pagination semantics.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler, ordered from purpose to exclusions to defaults/behavior. The critical routing constraint is front-loaded ahead of the defaults.

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?

With an output schema present, return format need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the routing and cost context an agent needs for a 7-parameter tool, though a few unmentioned parameters (page/limit/offset) are left solely to the schema.

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 57%, above the baseline threshold, and the schema documents date, offset, market_ids and affiliate_ids in detail. The description restates default values (1/2/3 and 19/23) already present in the schema and says nothing about page, limit, offset or sport_id, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Find event IDs and summaries') plus its scope ('for one sport and date'), which is exactly the identity an agent needs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_main_lines as the downstream consumer of the returned IDs.

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 exclusions ('Do not use this tool for futures or as a price quote') and names the correct alternative pattern ('use the returned exact event ID with get_main_lines'). This is a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use / what-else routing statement.

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