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 beyond that: the 10-credit cost and the availability boundaries (consensus data since 1999, per-bookmaker data only for the 2026 season). No contradictions with annotations are present.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the purpose and packs in the data scope, bookmaker list, time ranges, and cost with no filler. Every clause contributes actionable information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the output schema, and read-only annotations, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs: purpose, supported data, date coverage, cost, optional filters, and default behavior. Nothing essential 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%, so the schema already documents game_id, bookmaker, and snapshot_type. The description restates bookmaker names and snapshot categories but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the exact purpose ('Use for a game's betting lines') and specifies the odds types, bookmakers, and date coverage, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_line_movement, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 opening phrase 'Use for a game's betting lines' directly tells an agent when to call this tool, and the description clarifies the data scope. It provides no exclusions or alternative-tool routing, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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