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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains the computed vs stored grading sources, that off-book or unposted lines are graded by running PropLine's own grader, that Asian quarter lines split into two half-stakes, and that 'pending' must be reported rather than guessed. It also enumerates the 'unmatched' reason codes the agent must surface and discloses free-tier redaction — none of which is in 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?

Dense and front-loaded — tier, verb, and outcome vocabulary come first, edge cases after. A couple of clauses (e.g. 'Stateless', the free-tier redaction note) could be trimmed or merged, but nearly every sentence carries operational information.

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, yet the description documents the return surface: result values, actual_value, payout including stake, profit, summary, and the source field. For a stateless grader with one nested array parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real value on top: parlay settlement semantics ('any lost leg loses it and pushed/voided legs drop out'), the requirement that each leg carries its own price, and the 200-bet cap. The single-bet vs. legs structure is largely restated from the schema, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus scope: 'Settles PLACED bets, singles or parlays, against final results', and it enumerates the exact result vocabulary returned. An agent can tell immediately this is grading of already-placed bets, not pricing (propline_price_parlay) or line lookup.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to propline_list_events or propline_get_scores to obtain event_id, and states the access tier ('Hobby+ endpoint') and rate ceiling ('Max 200 bets'). It does not say when NOT to call it (e.g. use propline_price_parlay for unplaced hypothetical bets), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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