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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: result ordering ('newest first'), the entitlement requirement per sport, and the distinct semantics of the graded mode. It does not disclose error behavior when the plan lacks Line Moves or any pagination nuance beyond the limit default.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero waste. The primary behavior and returned fields come first, with the graded alternative and entitlement prerequisite following in a logical order.

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?

No output schema exists, so listing the returned fields (call, strength, line now, predicted close, our number) is necessary and well done, and ordering plus entitlement are covered. Missing only edge-case behavior (unlicensed fallback, error shape) to be fully complete.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the graded enum-style boolean meaning. The description restates the graded behavior and adds the entitlement constraint tied to sport ('Needs Line Moves for the sport'), which is a small value-add over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (the licensed Line Moves feed) and what it contains: open calls on line movement with call, strength, line now, predicted close, and our number. The 'licensed' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from get_line_moves_sample, but no sibling is named directly, so it falls just 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?

Explicitly describes the main branch (default = current open calls, newest first) and the alternative branch (graded=true returns the last 30 days of graded calls), plus the prerequisite 'Needs Line Moves for the sport.' It stops short of telling the agent what to do when unlicensed (e.g., fall back to get_line_moves_sample), so no explicit alternative routing.

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