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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context: what a bet stop means, that it can be triggered by a score, and that an API key with plan risk is required. It does not describe the response structure, but the added behavioral and auth context is meaningful.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core status information before the authentication note. Every sentence contributes, though the phrase 'plan risk' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return concept and authentication requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with only minor gaps around output shape.

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%, so the league and fixture parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reports whether each market is in a bet stop and whether its price is widened. It is specific about the resource and status being retrieved, though it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_live or get_pass_options.

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 provides an authentication prerequisite (API key with plan risk) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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