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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, and the description usefully layers on non-obvious traits: an empty result does not imply missing coverage, affiliate 27 is excluded, and no background polling or automatic retry should be attempted. These are genuine additions beyond the structured hints, though the opening 'Product data or price calculation' phrasing is vague.

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 content is a run-on, comma-spliced block that mixes purpose, data provenance, ID guidance, transport policy, an affiliate exclusion, and legal disclaimers without structure. Only the first clause is front-loaded; the rest is boilerplate that is hard to scan.

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 values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What is missing is the disambiguation an agent needs in a family of ~80 tools with four near-duplicate date-lookup endpoints, plus any hint of what 'canonical IDs' feed into.

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 description adds no meaning for any parameter: the sportID, the iso8601/epoch format choice, and the UTC offset in minutes are all documented only in the schema. With reported schema description coverage at 0% (nested path/query objects), the description should have compensated for that gap and does not.

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 opening clause 'Get available dates for a sport' states a specific verb and resource, so the core purpose is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as v2GetDatesBySportID, v2GetDatesBySportIDs, v1GetScheduleBySport, and v1GetEventsBySportAndDate, leaving the agent to guess which variant to call.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling date/schedule endpoints. 'Use returned canonical IDs' and 'never infer coverage from an empty result' are useful operational hints but not selection guidance, and the one-bounded-request/no-retry note is about transport behavior rather than tool choice.

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