get_probabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only notes subscription dependency and time window, omitting details like pagination behavior, error states, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences, each adding essential info: purpose and time constraint. No redundancy, front-loaded.

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?

While schema covers parameters, the description lacks details about result structure or pagination. For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the response looks like. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning to individual parameters, but confirms the data type (win/draw/loss). Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description provides marginal value.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves win/draw/loss probabilities, a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_live_probabilities by noting availability in subscription and 21-day advance window.

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 tool is available 21 days before match, giving a temporal context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_live_probabilities or get_probabilities_by_fixture_id, so guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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