football_get_odds

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: the data source (The Odds API), graceful degradation ('ALL_SOURCES_FAILED envelope' instead of crash), and output metadata (e.g., cache:stale adapter). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured: purpose, source/prerequisite, parameter section, and return format. It is concise (4 sentences plus list). However, the parameter description duplicates the schema verbatim, slightly reducing efficiency. The Returns section compensates by describing output structure.

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 tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description covers purpose, source, error handling, parameter semantics, and output structure. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but these are presumably handled by the output schema and annotations.

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% because the single parameter (team) has a full description in the input schema. The tool description repeats exactly the same text, adding no new semantic information. At baseline 3, no extra value is provided.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('live market head-to-head odds for upcoming World Cup 2026 matches'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like football_find_value_bets (value bet identification) or football_build_accumulator (accumulator building).

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 mentions the requirement of a THEODDS_KEY and the graceful failure without it, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., raw odds vs. value bets) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. The scope is limited to World Cup 2026, but no alternatives are suggested.

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