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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: no authentication required, affiliate 27 excluded, one bounded request with no background polling or automatic retry, and metered/access behavior tied to the connected account. The 'never infer coverage from an empty result' caveat is a genuinely useful behavioral note, though the phrase 'Read-only Product data or price calculation' is confusing filler.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a run-on string mixing return fields, availability caveats, rate/metering notes, an exclusion, and generic disclaimers ('No wagers, account changes or guarantee of returns'). Several clauses are boilerplate that dilute the signal.

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 no explanation, and the description still names the key returned fields plus the no-auth and exclusion facts. The one real gap is the undocumented query.include parameter, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 nested parameter (query.include with the 'regions' enum) is never mentioned in the description, so it provides no compensating meaning. An agent must rely entirely on the schema to discover that region data can be requested.

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+resource ('List all sportsbooks/affiliates') and enumerates what comes back (IDs, names, URLs, integration status). However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings list_affiliates, v1GetAffiliates, and v2GetSportsbooks, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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?

Offers fragments of usage context ('Use returned canonical IDs', 'Availability can vary by sport and market') but never says when this tool should be chosen over list_affiliates, v1GetAffiliates, or v2GetSportsbooks, nor states any preconditions. No when-not guidance at all.

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