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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and read-only, and describes what data it exposes: open pools, settled pools, and on-chain payout transaction hashes. It does not discuss errors, rate limits, or invalid league handling, but for a simple read tool the provided behavioral context is solid.

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 front-loaded with the core read purpose and uses short sentences, so it is not unstructured. But a large portion focuses on the separate betting endpoint, payout splits, refunds, and settlement rules, which are not necessary for calling this read tool. The word 'Free' also appears twice, adding 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?

Given a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns, what the league parameter does, and that the operation is free. The main weakness is the tangential betting content, which adds noise rather than missing essential call information.

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 compensate. It does add real meaning: 'league optionally filters open pools to one league.' It also lists the relevant sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) and uses 'nfl' in the example. However, expected value formats, default behavior when omitted, and whether the filter applies to settled pools remain implicit.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource: open and settled parimutuel sportsbook pools with on-chain payout transactions. However, the description quickly shifts into detailed betting instructions for a separate POST endpoint, which blurs the tool's actual scope and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 makes clear that this is a read operation and that the optional league parameter filters open pools. It also implicitly contrasts reading with the external POST-based betting flow, giving context for when an agent would read rather than place a bet. It lacks explicit exclusions or direct sibling comparisons, but the context is enough.

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