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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does: it discloses that odds/multiplier figures are only returned 'where the site has computed that mode's table', warning the agent that results can be partially populated, and notes results span each mode.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and the match criteria, then the return contents. No filler, though the trailing clause about conditional odds tables is slightly convoluted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a lookup tool with many semantically adjacent siblings, the description leaves unresolved how it differs from list/ranking tools and whether multiple matches are returned as a list.

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 both parameters are already documented as substring match on slot or publisher name and an optional mode name. The description restates the name/publisher matching without adding syntax, case rules, or precedence, and says nothing about the optional 'mode' filter beyond 'each mode's published RTP'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds Stake Engine slots on Stake by name or publisher') and describes the returned payload (mode RTP, max multiplier, odds). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like stake_list_games or stake_slot_rankings, which plausibly overlap in scope.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named despite a crowded sibling set (stake_list_games, stake_slot_rankings, stake_payout_odds) that an agent could easily confuse with this lookup. The only implied usage signal is 'by name or publisher'.

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