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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — the page's composite composition (futures + games + props in one call) and a data-availability caveat that props exist only for NFL and NBA. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or rate limits for what is presumably a large scrape.

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, no filler, with the content inventory front-loaded so an agent knows what it gets before reading the prerequisite clause. Every clause carries information: resources, prerequisites, source tool, and a coverage limitation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the description covers inputs, prerequisites, and a real data limitation. For an open-world scraping tool it could still say more about freshness or whether markets are pre-game only, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 both 'team' and 'league' are already documented, including the example slug format and the league enumeration — the description's mention that the slug comes from fanduel_sportsbook_teams largely repeats the schema text. It does tie the NFL/NBA limitation to the props portion of the output, but adds no format or casing guidance beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a clearly bounded resource (a FanDuel team's odds page), and it enumerates exactly what the page contains: championship futures, upcoming games with money line/spread/total for both sides, and player props with odds. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like fanduel_sportsbook_player_props or fanduel_sportsbook_event, which cover single markets rather than a team's aggregated page.

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?

States the two prerequisites plainly (a league and a team slug) and points to fanduel_sportsbook_teams as the source of the slug, which is a real when/how-to-use signal. It also flags a scoping limitation (props only for NFL and NBA). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with adjacent tools such as fanduel_sportsbook_league or fanduel_sportsbook_event, so no sibling exclusions are given.

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