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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint), requires an API key, is rate-limited, returns the first match if multiple games match, and uses case-insensitive substring matching. It also describes the success and failure return shapes. The only minor gap is not detailing the exact error format, but the description covers the key behaviors.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then covers behavior, success/failure, edge cases, and alternatives. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity, the description is complete. It covers the input semantics, output shape, error behavior, edge cases, and usage boundaries. The annotations provide safety hints (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description fills in the operational details an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the matching semantics (case-insensitive substring containment against the full team name) and clarifying that 'sport' is optional and defaults to the current in-season sport. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 states the tool's function: translating a matchup (home + away team) into an eventId. It uses a specific verb ('Translate') and names the resource (eventId) and the sibling tool (get_game_props) that consumes the result, distinguishing it from other tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you know the teams playing but don't have the eventId') and when not to use it ('use list_games to browse a slate, or get_game_props directly if you already have the eventId'). It also names the alternative tools, providing clear routing guidance.

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