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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, yet the description adds real operational context: access/delay/metered usage follow the connected account, an empty result must not be read as absent coverage, one bounded request with no background polling or automatic retry, affiliate 27 excluded, and no wagers or account changes.

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 and the ID-uniqueness/type-defaulting rule follows immediately. The tail contains several policy sentences (affiliate exclusion, no wagers, no guarantee of returns) that are useful but somewhat list-like and less tightly integrated.

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 description covers scope, defaults, access/metering constraints, and empty-result interpretation. Remaining minor gap is that it never explicitly points to the sibling list tools for discovery.

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 coverage is reported at 0%, so the description carries weight: it explains that `id` is unique per opportunity type and that `type` defaults to mainlines, which is behavior beyond a plain field listing. It does not enumerate the concrete type values, but the schema's enum supplies those.

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 a Hedge Opportunity by ID') and immediately scopes it to returning exactly one record from a selected opportunity type, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tools v2GetHedgeOpportunities, v2GetHedgeOpportunitiesByEvent and v2GetTopHedgeOpportunities.

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 concrete selection guidance: IDs are unique only within an opportunity type, so an ID from a non-mainlines feed must be requested with that feed's concrete `type`, and omission defaults to `mainlines` for backwards compatibility. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this one.

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