nba_odds_today

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description goes beyond by clarifying the live CDN data source, noting that no authentication is needed, and providing a return structure. These are useful behavioral details not present in the annotations.

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-loaded. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, followed by a concise return structure and a note on authentication. Every sentence serves a purpose without 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?

For a simple no-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states the data source, the odds types, the return structure, and auth requirements. There is no output schema, so the provided return shape compensates well. Minor ambiguities like timezone are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, but it does explain the output granularity (per game and book), which indirectly helps understand the data shape.

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 provides sportsbook odds for today's NBA games from a live CDN feed, specifying the odds types (spread, money line, total). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other sports or generic odds APIs.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool is for today's NBA odds, and the example 'Today's game odds' reinforces the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance.

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