pinnacle_labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context: the return shape, the per-sport grouping, and the fact that no auth is needed. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond 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 tight and front-loaded: purpose, example, return shape, and auth in two concise lines. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a zero-parameter dictionary lookup, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the top-level array structure, per-sport grouping, and auth requirements. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the explicit return shape in prose.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters, and the example mapping adds a helpful touch even though no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('decodes') and names the resource ('per-sport market-label dictionary'), with a concrete example (moneyline → 'Match Odds'). This clearly identifies it as a label-lookup utility and distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch matchups or market data.

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 purpose statement strongly implies when to use it: when you need human-readable labels for Pinnacle market keys. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like pinnacle_enums or pinnacle_matchup_markets.

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