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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: the 5-credit cost, the historical coverage window, and the exact per-book fields returned. It also imposes an explicit usage boundary (no stake/payout/profit calculations, no bet recommendations, no directing users to a sportsbook), which is not derivable from any annotation or schema field.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use for' trigger, then coverage scope, then cost and the market-information guardrail. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and safely use the tool; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 shape need not be spelled out, and the description still summarises the key returned fields. Cost, temporal coverage, filter granularity and the prohibition on derived betting advice together cover everything needed to invoke this tool 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 coverage is 83% and the enum, date format, limit default and match_id provenance are already documented in the schema. The description contributes only the loose scoping model ('for one match, or a competition, season or date') and says nothing about how filters combine or what limit governs, so this is baseline territory.

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 resource and content: match-winner prices by sportsbook, with each book's opening and latest pregame decimal price, American price, and snapshot count. It scopes coverage ('mid-2020 on, upcoming matches included'), which an agent can use to separate it from historical-only tools, but it never names a sibling such as get_line_movement or get_market_vs_model, so differentiation must be inferred.

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 usage context ('Use for match-winner prices', filterable to one match, a competition, a season, or a date) and discloses a 5-credit cost, which affects whether an agent calls it. It stops short of explicit exclusions — it does not say when to prefer get_line_movement or get_market_vs_model instead.

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