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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: metered usage tied to the connected account, affiliate 27 exclusion, no wagers or guarantees, and the important warning that an empty result does not imply lack of coverage. It does not mention result limits or pagination interaction with the offset param.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, but the opening is a run-on that concatenates the title with a second clause, and the remaining sentences are a staccato list of constraints. Most clauses earn their place, but the flow is choppy and some phrasing ('Product data or price calculation') is opaque.

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-value detail is not required, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, with high-complexity query parameters (offset timezone boundary, sport_ids cap) at 0% schema description coverage, the omission of any parameter guidance leaves a real gap for an agent calling this 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 reported at 0% and the description adds nothing about the date, offset, or sport_ids parameters – no mention of day-boundary/UTC behavior, offset semantics, or the 50-ID cap. It only says 'for the given date', which the schema already conveys via the required path.date field.

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 ('Get events across sports for a date') with a scope that distinguishes it from the per-sport siblings like v2GetEventsBySportAndDate. The second clause ('schedule listing dates grouped by sport') is a little muddled about what is actually returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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 operating constraints ('one bounded request, no background polling or automatic retry') and hints at downstream use ('Use returned canonical IDs'), but never states when to pick this over v1GetDatesBySport, v2GetDatesBySportIDs, or the per-sport event tools. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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