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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: metered/access behavior tied to the connected account, a bounded single request with no polling or auto-retry, exclusion of affiliate 27, and an explicit empty-result caveat. This is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Reasonably short but delivered as one run-on with a garbled opening clause ('Read-only Product data or price calculation') that does not earn its place. The actionable constraints are present but not cleanly front-loaded or separated.

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 needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the remaining behavioral caveats well. Its one meaningful gap is sibling routing (v1 vs v2GetSportsbooks), which the description never addresses.

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% and the single parameter (query.include, enum 'regions') is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description must compensate at low coverage but says nothing about the filter, so an agent cannot learn the only usable argument from the text.

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 ('List all sportsbooks'), so the agent knows what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling v2GetSportsbooks, and the '(alias)' tag plus the fragment 'Read-only Product data or price calculation' muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 downstream usage tips ('Use returned canonical IDs', 'never infer coverage from an empty result') that imply how to consume results, but offers no when-to-use guidance or comparison against the many alternatives, notably v1 vs v2GetSportsbooks.

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