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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: affiliate 27 is excluded, one bounded request with no background polling or automatic retry, metered usage tied to the connected account, and that an empty result does not imply zero coverage. That is meaningful value beyond the 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?

The description is a run-on stream of clauses, several of which read as boilerplate ('Read-only Product data or price calculation', 'No wagers, account changes or guarantee of returns'). The purpose is front-loaded but the body is cluttered and hard to parse.

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 values need no explanation, and the annotations plus caveats cover the safety profile. What is missing is routing information relative to the many sibling date/sport tools, which matters given this tool's near-duplicate name.

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 says nothing about sportID, format, or offset semantics. Although the schema itself carries rich field descriptions, the reported coverage metric is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. An agent gets no added meaning here.

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 first clause states a clear verb+resource (get available dates for a sport), which an agent can act on. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling v2GetDatesBySportIDs (multi-sport) or v1GetDatesBySport, leaving real ambiguity about which to pick.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named despite several close variants. The hints 'Use returned canonical IDs' and 'never infer coverage from an empty result' are useful caveats but not selection guidance.

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