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 elsewhere. The description adds the useful cross-tool dependency and the word 'current' (live data), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether an empty list is a valid outcome.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the scoping constraint and its source. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies what is missing: the prerequisite catalog step. Minor gap is that it doesn't characterize what 'current' means in terms of time window or result size.

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 the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'exact value' constraint but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, and its source name (yahoo_sports_sportsbook_catalog) differs in spelling from the schema's (yahoo-sports-odds-catalog), which introduces mild ambiguity.

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 (Fetch) and resource (Yahoo Sports odds-game IDs) with an explicit scope of one exact league value, which is unambiguous. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from (e.g., yahoo_sports_odds_game / yahoo_sports_odds_featured / trending), which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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 makes the required prerequisite workflow explicit: the league value must be an exact Graphite value taken from yahoo_sports_sportsbook_catalog, so an agent knows to call that catalog tool first. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or which sibling handles the follow-up (individual game odds).

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