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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the credit cost, returned fields, a clear market-information safety policy, and the upcoming-only alternative. This is rich behavioral guidance for an agent.

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 usage condition and filters, then returns, alternative, cost, and safety policy. Each sentence adds practical value, with no filler or repetition.

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 filtered-list tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies all the call-selection and behavioral context an agent needs. Nothing important about 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so parameter meaning is already established. The description lists filter categories in prose but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('querying past or future games') and enumerates the filter dimensions. It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_schedule by noting that get_schedule is for upcoming-only games.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (past or future games with filters) and names the alternative for upcoming-only queries. It also gives the credit cost and points to the cheaper sibling, leaving little ambiguity for tool selection.

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