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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful limitations: the map is not a complete legal eligibility matrix and does not read location, trading, or account state. This is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat that prevents misuse, though return-format behavior is left to the output schema.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads the resource and count, the second delivers the critical limitation. No filler.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, its scope, and its exclusions. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 'List' plus the exact resource: the 52 region/status mappings on DraftKings Predictions' public availability map, including labels and descriptions. The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like draftkings_predictions_categories and draftkings_predictions_rules.

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 clearly frames when this data applies by stating it is not a legal eligibility matrix and does not read caller location, trading, or account state, which steers an agent away from using it for personal eligibility questions. It offers strong contextual guidance but does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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