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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: each result includes the pool amount and the race it pays on, and results are sorted largest first.

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 efficiently packed sentences: the core resource and result shape come first, followed by the usage hint and filter options. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

The tool has an output schema, full schema coverage for all parameters, and read-only annotations; the description supplies the remaining essentials: what carryovers are, how results are ordered, and how to filter. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description restates that filtering is possible by status and track, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 description states a specific verb ('List') and a uniquely scoped resource ('FanDuel Racing multi-race pools that carried over'), enumerating the pool types (Pick 3 to Pick 6, Super High Five, Superfecta, Daily Double). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fanduel_racing_races or fanduel_racing_results, which cover races or results rather than carryover pools.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('Use it to find big carryovers') and mentions filtering by race status or track. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools (e.g., fanduel_racing_races) for broader race listings.

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