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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scheduled-vs-live scope, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result completeness.

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-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately short. The inline example and repeated sport_id list overlap with the schema examples, which is mild redundancy but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally convey what a result looks like (event fields, pagination), but it omits any return-value information. Adequate for identifying when to call, incomplete for what to expect back.

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 all three parameters including the sport_id mapping and day format. The description largely repeats that same mapping and the example, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 clear verb+resource: upcoming (scheduled) sport events for a given sport. The parenthetical 'scheduled' implicitly distinguishes it from live/in-play siblings, but it never names betsapi_inplay or betsapi_event_odds explicitly, so the differentiation relies on inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that it should use betsapi_inplay for live matches and betsapi_event_odds for pricing; the description only implies usage via the optional day filter.

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