odds

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it. It does not state whether all six parameters are optional filters that combine, what happens when none are given (full scan? error?), whether results are paginated, or what the response shape looks like.

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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than concision: two words cannot front-load the information an agent needs. Nothing is wasted because almost nothing is present.

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?

A six-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero required parameters needs a description to explain filter combination, defaults, and return content. Two words are completely inadequate for that complexity.

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?

Six parameters with only 50% schema coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The undocumented parameters 'bet', 'date' and 'bookmaker' are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so an agent cannot tell whether 'bet' is a bet id, a market type, or an amount.

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?

"Pre-match odds" names a resource and adds a temporal qualifier, but gives no verb and no indication of what is actually returned (a fixture's prices? a bookmaker comparison? a time series?). It largely restates the tool name 'odds' with a modifier.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The word 'pre-match' only implicitly distinguishes this from siblings like live_scores, leaving the agent to infer that this is the non-live odds source.

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