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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful substance beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains — per-league season, in-season status, free-feed existence, and the licence scope of this connection — which is context an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence covering what is listed, followed by a short imperative. The fields are front-loaded and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the whole burden and meets it by enumerating the fields returned plus the licence-scope caveat. An agent knows what it gets back and that it should call this before other tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics the description needs to compensate for. It correctly spends no words explaining inputs and instead describes output content.

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 ("Lists every league Bet Better covers") and enumerates the returned fields — code, name, season, in-season status, free-feed availability, and licence coverage. That scope is clearly narrower and more foundational than sibling lookups like get_bets_feed or get_free_picks, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Ends with an explicit sequencing directive, "Call this first," which tells the agent exactly where this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not name a when-not-to-use condition or point at a specific alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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