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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, and the description still adds material behavior: a concrete cost of 5 credits and an explicit statement of what each returned row contains (opening and closing prices, per book, handicap/total where posted, row source). The guardrails about not deriving stakes or recommending bets go beyond anything the annotations express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then cost, then constraints — every sentence carries information. The middle sentence is long and stacks several payload details, which slightly hurts scannability but nothing is redundant.

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?

The output schema means return structure need not be explained, and the description still describes content coverage, cost, and allowed use. The remaining gap is selector behavior: with no required parameters, it never says whether match_id and tournament_id are mutually exclusive or what happens when the call is made with neither.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates them ('a match or every match of a tournament'). It adds no guidance on the real ambiguity here: that match_id and tournament_id are alternatives, and what a call with neither (0 required params) returns. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 (sportsbook moneylines) with a precise scope: a single match or every match of a tournament. It also enumerates the payload — opening and closing prices per book, handicap and total, and row source — so an agent can distinguish this from get_match or get_head_to_head without inspecting either 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?

Frames the trigger clearly ('use for sportsbook moneylines on a match or every match of a tournament') and adds hard exclusions about what must never be done with the prices (no stake/payout math, no recommendations, no redirects to a book). It does not name a sibling alternative for adjacent needs, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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