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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the 10-credit cost, the covered bookmakers, the season range including the current season, the default closing snapshot behavior, and compliance constraints around market information. These details significantly exceed what the 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 front-loaded with the core use case and remains information-dense, with every major sentence contributing context. It is a long paragraph and includes some details, such as the full bookmaker list and side/point explanation, that could be tightened, but overall it earns its space.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage, and complete schema descriptions, the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: data scope, default snapshot behavior, cost, and usage constraints. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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 all four parameters well. The description restates the bookmaker list and snapshot default, and mentions side/point semantics that are not input parameters, but it adds limited new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: alternate spreads and totals by sportsbook, every point on each book's ladder with prices, for one game, from 2023 onward. It clearly distinguishes this from general odds or line-movement tools by emphasizing alternate ladders and per-book pricing.

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 this for alternate spreads and totals by sportsbook, with closing ladders returned by default and opening ladders available. It does not explicitly name when to use a sibling tool instead, so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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