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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, so the description adds real value: a concrete cost ('5 credits') and hard policy constraints on what the agent may do with the odds data (no staking, payout math, bet recommendations, or sportsbook referrals). What it doesn't disclose is failure modes (unknown game_id, league default behavior beyond the schema default).

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, then the sibling routing, then the cost and compliance guardrail. No filler and nothing important buried.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, sibling routing, cost, and data-use guardrails. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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% and both game_id (source of ids) and the league enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('one game in full') and enumerates the payload at a level no sibling offers: line score, every batter/pitcher line, each sportsbook's opening and closing line, win-probability range. This is clearly distinguishable from get_games (list) and get_plate_appearances (granular), which the description explicitly routes to.

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 alternative with a condition: 'For every plate appearance use get_plate_appearances.' Absence of when-not guidance versus get_games or get_odds is the only gap; scope ('one game in full') implies the rest.

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