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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states the data is free, informative only, not betting advice, 18+, includes losses, excludes unsettled picks, and reports stats such as win rate and profit. It does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or mention rate/auth constraints, but for a public informational feed the disclosure is strong.

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 description is front-loaded with the key distinction ('FREE. Sports doubles feed... full SETTLED record') and keeps the relevant details together. It has some redundancy, especially repeating 'info only' and '18+', but the repetition is minor compliance boilerplate rather than disorganized content.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: settled picks including losses, legs, odds at tip time, results, won/lost/void counts, win rate, average combined odds, and running flat-stake profit. It also makes the key exclusion clear, so an agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool.

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 100%, and the single limit parameter is already well documented in the schema, including default and range behavior plus the note that stats cover the full record. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies this as a settled sports doubles record tool, not a generic doubles feed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from unsettled/today-style tools by stating 'full SETTLED record' and 'Never shows unsettled picks,' which is enough to separate it from the sibling doubles_today tool.

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 a clear usage context: retrieve the full settled record for historical results and stats, and it explicitly excludes unsettled picks. However, it does not name doubles_today or otherwise explicitly route users to the sibling tool for today's unsettled picks.

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