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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behaviour, and the description adds useful operational detail beyond them: the result is a bounded list of about twenty events, the data shape (fractional odds, expected vs actual percentages, opening/current prices), and the explicit not-found outcome for an empty sport. Missing rate-limit or freshness/polling guidance, but the disclosure 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the result content, then the parameter and error case. The field enumeration is dense but each item (fractional odds, percentages, opening/current prices) conveys real payload information rather than 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return values, yet it usefully summarises them; the single optional parameter, default, key source, and failure case are all covered. An agent has enough to call it correctly, with only sibling-selection guidance absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates all sport keys and the not-found behaviour, so the description largely restates it. The one added nuance is pointing at sofascore_sports as the source of valid keys, which is a marginal gain over the enum list.

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 ('Returns SofaScore's winning odds list') and details the payload: ~20 upcoming events, favourite's fractional odds, expected/actual percentages, full-time market with opening and current prices. That content profile distinguishes it in practice from neighbours like sofascore_odds_dropping and sofascore_event_odds, though those siblings are never named or contrasted explicitly.

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?

Gives context for the parameter ('all by default') and notes the failure mode ('a sport with no qualifying events returns not found'), and points to sofascore_sports for valid keys. However it never says when to pick this tool over the other SofaScore odds tools, leaving selection to inference.

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