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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—only listing return fields and the eventID handoff. No contradictions, but no additional risk-relevant details.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a usage example. It front-loads the main purpose, includes a concrete invocation example, and contains no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key return fields (team names, start time, status, eventIDs) and explains their purpose. The schema handles parameter details and defaults; annotations cover safety. It's reasonably complete for a list tool, though pagination details are absent.

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%; every parameter has a description. The description's example and league examples add no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool lists upcoming games for a league, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('events'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling sgo_event_odds by noting that eventIDs are returned 'to fetch full odds', implying the odds tool is separate.

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?

The description implies a workflow: list events first, then use eventIDs to fetch full odds (presumably via sgo_event_odds). It gives a concrete example and clarifies the league scope. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use this tool.

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