Games Get Win Probabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful hint about the data shape ('high-density timeline curve samples across an entire game'), but says nothing about ordering, coverage, or how the limit default of 50 interacts with a claim of covering the whole game.

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. It is efficient, though 'high-density ... curve samples' is slightly jargon-heavy for the amount of information conveyed.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: what the returned samples look like, how limit is applied, and whether 'entire game' is guaranteed. A one-line description cannot carry this tool's requirements on its own.

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?

Five parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions no parameter at all. sport, league and event_id have to be inferred from the schema alone, and limit and competition_id are entirely undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb and resource: fetching win probability timeline curve samples for a game. That is enough to separate it from siblings like games_get_play_by_play or games_get_game_summary, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent games_get_game_predictor, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. which leagues/sports are supported). The only usage signal is the implicit 'across an entire game', which the agent must infer from the required event_id.

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