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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: a 2-credit cost and explicit policy constraints about not computing stakes/payouts or recommending bets. It doesn't cover pagination or result limits, but the added cost and policy disclosure is meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences carry the cost and policy information. The policy sentence is somewhat long but earns its place by constraining agent behavior around betting-related responses.

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 not be explained. The description covers purpose, both invocation modes, cost, and policy constraints; the only minor gap is result limits or ordering, which is arguably the output schema's job.

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 days, team, and week. The description restates the default of 7 days and notes that week returns all games played or not, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb+resource ('see what is coming up: unplayed games') and specifies scope precisely — upcoming N days, or a specific week of the current season. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_games or get_game_detail, so it falls short of a 5 despite being clear and specific.

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 clear context for when to reach for this tool ('what is coming up') and the two modes of use (days vs. week). It doesn't state when NOT to use it or point to the alternative tools (e.g. get_games for past results), so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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