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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by labeling the endpoint as free-tier, explaining the synthetic derivation from multiple books (Pinnacle, Polymarket, etc.), and clarifying that no retail sportsbook quotes this market—useful behavioral details beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core function ('Returns the synthetic daily MLB Grand Salami'), and every clause earns its place—including the data-source detail and practical examples. It is simultaneously concise and information-dense.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the output contains (total runs plus each book's implied line), the data sources, and the use cases. It also notes the synthetic nature and unique market status, making it complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

The input schema already documents the single optional 'date' parameter with format and default, achieving 100% coverage. The description only repeats the notion of 'given UTC date' without adding syntax or additional parameter behavior, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 returns the synthetic daily MLB Grand Salami for a UTC date, with the exact meaning of the metric explained (total runs plus each book's implied line). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the MLB Grand Salami niche and explicitly noting no retail sportsbook quotes it as a single market.

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 provides explicit example use cases ('what's the total run line for tonight's full MLB slate', 'did the Grand Salami go over yesterday', 'historical results for backtesting'), which clarify when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like the NHL daily goals total, though the examples suffice for typical selection.

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