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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it costs 2 credits, returns median lines rather than all book lines, and includes explicit policy constraints on how pricing information may be used. These details materially affect invocation and downstream handling.

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 with the primary use case and scope, then names the sibling alternative, cost, and usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of structured annotations.

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 that annotations cover safety traits, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists, the description supplies the remaining agent-critical context: cost, date scope, median-line behavior, sibling routing, and policy restrictions. Nothing important for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents days, team, and league. The description reinforces the days range and default but does not add meaning for team or league beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 resource: upcoming games over a 1-30 day window with median sportsbook lines for spread, total, and moneylines. It also distinguishes the tool from get_odds by saying get_odds is for every book's line. An agent can identify this as the schedule-plus-median-market tool 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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: use for upcoming games, default 7 days, range 1-30 days. It names the alternative get_odds when per-book lines are needed. It also sets clear behavioral boundaries around not calculating stakes, payouts, profits, recommending bets, or directing users to sportsbooks.

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