Recent line moves (keyless)

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered, and the description adds genuinely new context that no key or credits are required — useful for an agent deciding whether it can call this. It says nothing about recency window, ordering, or whether the result is a snapshot or stream, which matters for an "open world" public-data tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the access condition. Nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long — the efficiency comes at the cost of coverage, not verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple (4 optional params, no output schema) and read-only, so the bar is moderate, and the description does state the return content (previous and current line). Still, for a public data feed with no output schema, an agent cannot tell how far back "recent" reaches or how rows are ordered, which is the main remaining gap.

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 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents task, limit, and league, and the market enum is self-explanatory. The description adds no meaning to any parameter — no guidance on how league and market interact, or whether market should be left at "all" by default. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Recent Pick6 and sportsbook line moves with previous and current line" names a specific resource (line moves) and a specific scope (Pick6 + sportsbook markets), and it hints at the payload shape. It distinguishes itself from broader odds tools by saying "moves," but it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary against get_odds_history or get_pick6_line_history.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over get_odds_history or get_pick6_line_history, or what window counts as "recent." The sentence "No key needed, no credits" describes access terms, not the situation that should trigger this tool.

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