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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the call costs 10 credits and requires a game_id obtained from get_games or get_schedule. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The primary use case is front-loaded, the content scope is listed compactly, and the prerequisite and cost are stated at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data it will receive, where to get the required ID, and that it costs credits. Nothing essential for calling it correctly 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 coverage is 100% with a concrete example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that game_id should come from get_games or get_schedule, giving the agent provenance for the parameter beyond the schema's type and example.

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 tool returns comprehensive data for one game: teams, box-score stats, odds, weather, surface, and officials. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'everything about one game' and enumerating the specific data categories, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: when you need the full detail set for a single game. It also names the prerequisite source for game_id ('from get_games or get_schedule'), which is actionable. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong.

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