puntersedge_demo_best_odds

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context: keyless access, a 'cached' field implying caching, the precise response shape, the meaning of arb_exists, and the caveat that team naming is per-bookmaker so the same fixture can appear twice under different spellings.

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?

Front-loaded and organized into purpose, returns, caveat, example, and auth lines, which is appropriate given there is no output schema. The trailing 'Example: Best odds + arb flag for a live sport, keyless' largely restates the opening line and is mild filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the full return structure, the arb_exists semantics, the cross-bookmaker team-naming pitfall, and the auth situation. An agent has everything it needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole 'sport' parameter is already documented in the schema (including the omit-picks-a-live-sport behavior). The description adds only the loose constraint of 'one sport', so it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opening states a specific resource and scope: best price per selection across books, with an arbitrage flag, for up to 3 upcoming events in one sport. It also implicitly differentiates from the keyed siblings by noting that 'the keyed tools carry canonical_event_id to join them'.

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 clearly states the condition that selects this tool (no key needed, small live sample, capped at 3 events) versus the keyed tools that 'unlock more'. However, it never names the full-data alternative explicitly (e.g. puntersedge_sport_best_odds), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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