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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the content shape (scores, status, markets, subcategory IDs), but with an output schema present this is mostly redundant and no auth, rate-limit, or freshness caveats are disclosed.

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 with no waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the routing guidance follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 no params, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey purpose and routing, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, though it could state more explicitly when live coverage applies.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The event ID and subcategory ID mentioned in the text belong to the sibling tool's invocation, not this one, so there is nothing further to document here.

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 ('Fetch live DraftKings event scores and status') and enumerates the payload (primary markets and market-subcategory IDs). It names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from draftkings_event_markets and draftkings_league_events without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use draftkings_event_markets with an event ID + subcategory ID for one market's selections, or draftkings_league_events for a scheduled league directory. The condition for this tool itself (live events) is only implied rather than stated as an exclusion, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not statement.

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