predict_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral nuances: using rest days only if the game is scheduled, attaching the market line when available, and an early-season reliability caveat. This goes beyond a trivial description, though it does not cover error handling or result structure in exhaustive detail.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by behavioral context and a caveat. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, the prediction logic, and an important temporal caveat. It does not detail return structure or error behavior, but for the tool's complexity it is sufficiently 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parameter names home_team and away_team are self-explanatory given the matchup context, and the description reinforces the home/away distinction. However, it offers no format guidance (e.g., abbreviations vs full names) or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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's purpose: it provides a model prediction for a matchup, listing specific outputs (home win probability, predicted margin, feature inputs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like team_form or power_ratings, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides useful context on when the tool works best: it uses rest days if the game is scheduled, attaches the market line when available, and mentions an early-season caveat (weeks 1-3). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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