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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond them: relative cost (25 cr), the alternative's cost, and a compliance boundary (no stake/payout math, no bet recommendations, no sportsbook referrals). It does not describe auth or rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then cost comparison, then the compliance caveat — a sensible ordering. The third sentence is a long policy clause, but every clause carries real constraint value rather than filler, so it stays efficient.

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 values need no explanation. Between the cost framing, the explicit alternative, the snapshot semantics, and the usage restrictions, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and how to interpret the result.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the non-obvious all_snapshots dedup behavior. The description reinforces that filtering is per bookmaker and that snapshots are hourly, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('see how a game's lines moved') and immediately scopes the payload (per-bookmaker hourly snapshots plus the latest capture). It explicitly names the sibling get_odds as the alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from the other 20 odds/stats tools without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('use get_odds (10 cr) if you only need opening, closing, or current lines') and a cost-based selector (25 cr vs 10 cr), which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs. It also states the standing constraint on how the data may be used.

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