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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: a 10-credit cost per call and a hard usage constraint that prices are market information and must not be used for stake/payout/profit calculations or sportsbook referrals.

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?

Four dense sentences: use case and payload first, then prerequisite, then cost, then the market-information constraint. No filler, no restating the title, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary. The description still covers the payload inventory, the required prerequisite and its source, the credit cost, and the policy constraint — everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly and responsibly.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage (schema shows the exact game_id format, e.g. 2025_01_KC_BUF), the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond this by citing the source tools for the id, adding provenance the schema does not carry.

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 verb+resource ('everything about one game') and enumerates the payload precisely: team box-score stats, consensus closing line, per-bookmaker odds, weather, surface, officials. An agent can distinguish this from get_odds, get_team_stats, or get_games without opening a 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?

'Use when you need everything about one game' gives clear usage context and 'Requires a game id from get_games or get_schedule' names the upstream tools that supply the prerequisite. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use get_odds if you only need prices), so a 4 rather than 5.

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