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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real substance beyond that: it enumerates the returned record types (separate market records, original-price moneyline/totals ROI, settled picks) and, importantly, discloses the privacy boundary that unsettled member selections are withheld.

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 dense sentences with the output inventory front-loaded and the privacy caveat placed last, which is the right ordering. Every clause carries content, though the long comma-list of return types is slightly hard to parse on one pass.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (per-market records, ROI, settled and free selections) and states the exclusion rule, which is close to what an agent needs. The unexplained season range and lack of sibling routing are the remaining gaps for a read-only tool.

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 67% with the description restating the market dimension (ATS/moneyline/Over-Under) and the free-pick notion that maps to free_only, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema. The season parameter has no description in either the schema or the prose, leaving one parameter fully undocumented.

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 ('Read') and resource (Jevan's published ATS/moneyline/Over-Under records, ROI, settled and free selections), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings such as get_weekly_free_picks or get_member_weekly_picks, which overlap on the 'free selections' surface.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over the four sibling tools, even though get_weekly_free_picks clearly overlaps with the free_only parameter and 'free selections' output. The only boundary given is a privacy rule about unsettled member selections, which is a scope note rather than usage routing.

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