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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable non-schema behavior: it costs 5 credits and includes explicit compliance constraints around market information, which are important for correct use beyond what annotations 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 four tight sentences with no waste. It front-loads the return contents, then covers the sibling alternative, cost, and compliance constraint 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?

With full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the remaining burden on the description is low. It still explains the data scope, cost, sibling alternative, and market-information restriction, leaving no significant gap for correct invocation.

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 game_id and league are fully documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces that this is for one game but adds no syntax, format, or enum meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 exactly what a call returns: a single game in full, including score, both teams' box scores, every player's line, each sportsbook's opening and closing line, and win-probability range. It also explicitly distinguishes this from get_plays, so an agent can route between the two without opening 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?

It gives clear usage context ('Use for one game in full') and explicitly names the alternative for play-by-play ('For the play-by-play use get_plays'). It does not address overlap with siblings like get_odds or get_line_movement, but the primary routing decision is covered.

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