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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context: metered/rate-limited access tied to the connected account, a bounded single request with no polling or automatic retry, affiliate 27 exclusion, and the warning not to infer coverage from an empty result.

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?

Information-dense and reasonably front-loaded, but the text is a run-on: the purpose clause runs directly into 'Read-only' with no punctuation, and the remaining constraints are strung together as fragments rather than structured sentences.

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 access/exclusion caveats are covered. The main gap is that a versioned tool with a v1 twin gives no guidance on when this version is the right choice.

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 single required sportID parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, and top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0%. The nested schema does list common sport ID values, which prevents total failure, but the description itself contributes nothing about the parameter.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get divisions for a sport'), so the operation is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling v1GetDivisionsBySport, leaving the agent to guess which version 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the v1 alternative despite an almost identical sibling existing. 'Use returned canonical IDs' describes downstream consumption, not tool selection.

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