Odds

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and neither idempotent nor destructive, but give no reason for the non-read-only flag. The description supplies exactly that missing context: the call consumes tokens, is quoted before execution, and is refused when the quote exceeds max_tokens. That materially changes how an agent should budget the call. Auth, rate limits and pagination are still undisclosed.

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, no padding. The core purpose comes first and the costly, refusing behavior — the operational fact most likely to surprise an agent — is front-loaded into the second sentence.

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 10-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the return shape (back/lay board) and the cost gate, and the schema carries the rest. The absence of output schema means the agent still has no explicit picture of the response envelope, which keeps this short of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the heavy lifting is done by the schema, including max_tokens' refusal semantics and the commence_from/to window. The description only reinforces the bookmakers parameter ("at the bookmakers you name") and the token ceiling, adding little beyond what is already documented. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Reads a matched board") and defines the resource precisely as bookmaker back prices paired with exchange lay prices, scoped to one sport and named bookmakers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling event_odds, leaving the board-vs-single-event distinction implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied through the cost warning ("Spends tokens: priced first"), which tells the agent to be deliberate about calling it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as event_odds for narrower queries. The agent must infer routing from the description alone.

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