pinnacle_labels

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states the return structure and that it is a dictionary (read-only, no side effects). For a simple read tool, this provides sufficient transparency, though it could explicitly declare no destructive behavior.

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 two concise sentences: the first defining purpose, the second giving return structure. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning its place efficiently.

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 dictionary tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, example, and return format. It covers the necessary information for an agent to understand what it does and what it returns.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema already fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 it is a 'per-sport market-label dictionary' that 'decodes market keys/types into human names', with an example (moneyline → 'Match Odds'). This distinctively sets it apart from other pinnacle tools, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage for decoding market keys but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like pinnacle_enums or other reference tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, making it adequate but not explicit.

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