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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: metered/access behavior tied to the connected account, a single bounded request with no polling or auto-retry, and exclusion of affiliate 27. It stops short of describing pagination or limits on the returned date set.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the text runs together without punctuation ('for multiple sports Returns dates...') and appends a string of constraint clauses ('No wagers, account changes or guarantee of returns') that reads as boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance.

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 format needn't be explained, and the description covers the key caveats an agent needs (canonical IDs, empty-result interpretation, no retry). The one gap is routing guidance relative to the near-identical singular sibling.

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 only alludes to 'sport IDs' and 'canonical IDs'; it says nothing about the format or UTC-offset controls. The nested schema properties do carry their own descriptions (format, offset, sport_ids constraints), so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 (get available dates) and scopes it to multiple sports / sport IDs, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling v2GetDatesBySportID. It is clear, though the second sentence largely restates the first.

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 gives two useful interpretive rules — use returned canonical IDs, and never infer coverage from an empty result — but never says when to choose this plural variant over v2GetDatesBySportID or v1GetDatesBySport, nor states prerequisites for the call. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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