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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, closed-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that results are computed from payout tables and that output differs depending on whether `game` is supplied.

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 tight sentences: the first states what is returned and how it is computed, and the second explains the optional parameter's effect. There is no wasted language.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only meaningful gap is that it does not clarify how this differs from other odds/payout-oriented sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It does so by explaining the effect of omitting versus providing `game`, though it does not elaborate on the enum values themselves beyond the schema listing them.

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 states a specific set of metrics (return to player, house edge, top payout) for a specific scope (Stake Originals) and explains that values come from each game's payout table. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as stake_payout_odds.

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?

It explains the two usage modes: omitting `game` produces a summary, and supplying `game` produces detailed settings. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over related tools like stake_payout_odds or stake_crash_odds.

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