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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return contents: moneyline, spread, total markets, player props, and prices across sportsbooks. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences and a short example convey the tool's purpose and usage with zero wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the example makes the call structure immediately clear.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (markets, props, prices). It also gives the necessary prerequisite (sgo_events). The annotations and schema cover safety and parameter semantics, making the description complete.

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%, with both parameters (eventID and _apiKey) already well-documented. The description provides an example call and reinforces that eventID comes from sgo_events, but it adds no new semantic meaning 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?

Description clearly states the function: 'Get all odds & player props for a specific game.' It specifies the exact markets returned (moneyline, spread, total, player props) and distinguishes itself from sibling tool sgo_events by emphasizing 'specific game' and requiring an eventID.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Look up the eventID first via sgo_events.' This guides the user to the correct prerequisite tool and sequence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond sgo_events, so it stops short of a 5.

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