Games Get Futures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the market types returned; it does not mention rate limits, data source, or availability constraints. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource come first and the parenthetical examples earn their place by clarifying scope.

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 read-only, no-output-schema fetch tool, the description names the returned market categories, which is the key information an agent needs to judge relevance. The one real gap is the missing contrast with games_get_event_odds among a large sibling set.

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 season parameter documentation is notably dense (year-end convention per sport, defaults to ESPN's current season), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax or format meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('season futures betting markets') and concretizes it with three examples of market types (championship odds, conference champions, win totals). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling games_get_event_odds, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 qualifier 'season futures' implicitly routes the agent away from event-level odds toward season-long markets, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus games_get_event_odds or what sport/league prerequisites apply. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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