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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds domain-specific context beyond that: this reads public data and places no bets, which matters in a sportsbook tool where nearby siblings (draftkings_odds) are betting-adjacent. It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists.

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, zero waste. The core operation is front-loaded, then the routing/purpose guidance follows.

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?

Annotations cover safety, an output schema covers return values, and the schema covers the single parameter. The description supplies the remaining piece—what the identifiers are for and how to use them—so nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the numeric event_id format fully. The description restates the type ('numeric') without adding syntax, sourcing, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('numeric DraftKings event_id' → 'public sport, league, and event navigation identifiers'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling draftkings_event, which returns event details, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 the downstream purpose ('associate an event with Sportsbook navigation') and names the alternative explicitly ('or use draftkings_event for event details'). The when-to-use-this-vs-sibling condition is stated, not implied.

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