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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: Affiliate 27 is excluded, empty results don't imply missing coverage, and there is no polling/retry or account/wager mutation. These are real operational caveats an agent could not derive from the schema or annotations.

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?

It is compact with no obvious filler, but it is a run-on cluster of clipped fragments with a missing sentence boundary after the opening clause ("...sportsbooks/affiliates Read-only Product data..."). Content is efficient; structure is poor and hurts front-loading.

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 is simple (one optional nested param, output schema present), so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key caveats about exclusions and result interpretation. The remaining hole is that the `query` parameter is entirely unexplained.

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% for a single nested `query.include` parameter whose only meaningful value is the `regions` enum. The description says nothing about how to use `query`, what `include` accepts, or whether it omits/expands fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List all sportsbooks/affiliates"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings v2GetAffiliates, list_affiliates, or v1GetSportsbooks, which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs. Clear purpose, missing sibling differentiation.

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 offers implied guidance: use the returned canonical IDs downstream, treat one request as bounded, and don't infer coverage from an empty result. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the v2/list_affiliates alternatives, which is the main selection question for this tool.

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