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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool covers both past and future games, it costs 5 credits, and it returns consensus betting lines in addition to basic game data. No destructive or state-changing behavior is implied.

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 filler. The use case and filters are front-loaded, followed by the return summary, then the sibling alternative and cost. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure lets an agent quickly determine applicability.

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 an 8-parameter queried-list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what kinds of games are included, what data is returned, when to prefer a sibling tool, and the credit cost. Nothing required for correct invocation or selection 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% for all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter types and constraints. The description adds value by grouping these into a filter list and naming 'date range' (mapping to date_from/date_to), but it does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'querying past or future games with filters'. It enumerates the key filter dimensions (season, week, team, date range, game type, status) and names a sibling tool it is not (get_schedule), making it easy for an agent to distinguish this from other game-related 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?

The description explicitly states when to use it ('Use when querying past or future games') and gives an explicit alternative with a condition ('For upcoming-only games prefer get_schedule (2 cr)'). It also includes a cost comparison ('Costs 5 credits'), which helps with tool selection under budget constraints.

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