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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add what those hints cannot. It does: a concrete cost of 2 credits, disclosure that consensus lines appear only 'where posted', and a hard restriction on how the returned market information may be used. Missing only return-shape or volume expectations, which the output schema covers.

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 use case and the two modes are front-loaded in the first clause, and the cost and compliance sentences are short and non-redundant. Slight density in the final compliance sentence, but nothing that wastes space.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, cost, and usage restrictions. An optional parameter set with no required inputs needs little more. It leaves the days-versus-week precedence only loosely implied rather than stated outright.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the default of 7 and the range on days. The description restates the default and implies days and week are alternatives, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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 ability: upcoming unplayed games within N days, or a specific week of the current season, plus the presence of consensus lines. The resource and the two retrieval modes are unambiguous. It stops short of naming get_games or get_game_detail as the contrasting sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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?

'Use to see what is coming up' gives a direct use condition and the two qualifying modes (next N days vs specific week) are spelled out, so the agent knows which parameter shape selects which behavior. It also constrains downstream use of the returned prices. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool is provided.

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