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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the 5-credit price and the pricing-information policy constraints, which are not derivable from annotations or schema.

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-loads what the tool returns, then immediately routes to alternatives, then states cost and policy. Every clause carries new information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description needs only to explain scope, alternatives, cost, and constraints, and it does all four. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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%: game_id is documented as coming from list_games or get_schedule, and league carries its full enum and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 verb and resource ('one match in full') and enumerates the exact payload: score with shootout, box scores with named metrics, player lines, key events, and opening/closing lines. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_events and get_lineups, so an agent can select it without opening the 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 explicit routing rules: events go to get_events, formations to get_lineups. It also states the 5-credit cost and the compliance boundaries (no stake/payout/profit calculation, no bet recommendations, no sportsbook referrals), which are usage conditions an agent must know before calling.

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