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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses snapshot cadence, historical-coverage limitations, cost in credits, and an important usage constraint: prices are market information and must not be used for stakes, payouts, profit calculations, or betting recommendations. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 and every sentence carries useful information, including coverage details, query modes, cost, and compliance constraints. It is dense and somewhat parenthetical, but not wasteful.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the important context: market scope, snapshot timing, historical caveats, query modes, credit cost, and usage restrictions, leaving little an agent needs to infer before calling it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics about query modes and how tournament_id, season, and player_id relate to scope, though it does not explain every parameter such as limit or bookmaker.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pre-tournament winner prices for the four men's majors by sportsbook, including opening and latest prices. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_leaderboard or get_head_to_head by naming the exact market and explicitly excluding round, matchup, and finishing-position markets.

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 clear selection guidance among query modes: pass tournament_id, season, or player_id, and explains what each scope returns. It also excludes unsupported markets, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or say when not to use this tool versus another odds-related alternative.

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