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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (event id, teams, commence_time) and how to use that output downstream. No contradiction with 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by return fields and usage. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and how to proceed. Combined with strong annotations and full schema coverage, it leaves no significant gaps.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying sport_key via 'for a sport' and not mentioning the 'live' boolean. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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?

Description uses specific verb 'list' with resource 'events' and clarifies scope 'for a sport'. It explicitly enumerates returned fields (id, home_team, away_team, commence_time) and distinguishes its role as an entry point for per-event tools, clearly separating it from siblings like list_event_markets or get_scores.

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 gives clear context: it is the initial step to obtain event IDs, and explicitly says to use the returned event_id for further drilling. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the workflow guidance is strong enough to guide appropriate usage.

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