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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real beyond-annotation context: access/delay/metered usage tied to the connected account, no background polling or retry, affiliate 27 excluded, and empty results do not imply missing coverage. It omits pagination behavior, though offset/limit are bounded in the schema.

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 what-it-does clause, but that clause is a near-copy of the title. The remainder is a string of clipped fragments ('Read-only Product data or price calculation.', 'No wagers, account changes or guarantee of returns.') that read as boilerplate disclaimers rather than information the agent needs to call the tool.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return shape need not be explained, and the description does explain the core semantics of the ranking, the account-scoped access caveat, and the affiliate exclusion. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter nested object; the missing piece is distinguishing it from its identically-purposed 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 schema's nested properties carry descriptions (date format, limit, offset as UTC minute adjustment, affiliate_ids rules, window_minutes), so the description's contribution is limited to echoing sport_id/date, the lookback window, and the affiliate-27 exclusion — which duplicates the affiliate_ids schema text verbatim. No additional meaning is added for offset or limit, so this sits at the baseline rather than compensating for the reported low coverage.

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 names a specific resource and defines the otherwise-jargon term 'steamer' concretely: open prices for a sport/date whose implied probability moved most during the lookback window. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling v2GetSteamersBySportAndDate or v2GetOutliersBySportAndDate, which is the one thing an agent most needs here. The opening clause largely restates the title.

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?

Offers operational guidance ('One bounded request, no background polling or automatic retry', 'Use returned canonical IDs') and a data-interpretation warning ('never infer coverage from an empty result'), which is useful. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. the near-identical sibling v2GetSteamersBySportAndDate, nor when this beats v2GetOutliersBySportAndDate — usage is implied rather than stated.

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