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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world nature, and the description adds what annotations cannot: results are in relevance order and include sport, competition and start time, plus a separate set of matching competitions. It omits the market/state scoping effect and any paging caveat, but the added return-shape detail is substantive.

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?

Roughly two sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and query form before the return shape and hand-off advice. The semicolon clause is dense but each part carries information.

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 and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey purpose, return ordering and where to go next, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't flag that results are market-scoped by state, which can surprise an agent seeing fewer events than expected.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (q, type, limit, state, event_type_id) is documented in the schema itself, including ranges and defaults. The description only repeats the text examples and reframes ids as hand-off keys, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 (search) and resource (FanDuel Sportsbook events and competitions) with the search key (team or league names). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fanduel_sportsbook_event and fanduel_sportsbook_competition tools by positioning itself as the id-resolver that feeds them.

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 concrete query examples ('lakers', 'nfl') and a clear next-step instruction ('use the ids with the event and competition tools'), which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it, e.g. browsing by sport via fanduel_sportsbook_sports or fanduel_sportsbook_live for in-play.

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