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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that published resolved picks remain publicly transparent and describes the bundled output fields. This provides moderate behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or the exact structure of the response.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary fluff. However, the structure could be improved by grouping related information (e.g., listing parameters), but overall it is well-sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description lacks critical details for effective tool usage. It does not explain the 5 parameters, nor does it specify how to use cursor pagination or filter options. Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the 5 parameters. The description only generically mentions 'filters' and 'cursor pagination' without explaining specific parameters like limit, cursor, league, result, or days_back. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making it very hard for an agent to correctly use the parameters.

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 returns a shaped 90-day resolved premium-pick view for MCP Pro, specifying verb, resource, and scope. It mentions it's an agent-ready convenience view with bundled fields. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_pick_history or get_projection_history, the mention of 'premium' and 'resolved' implies a specific subset.

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 context that published resolved picks are publicly transparent and that this is a convenience view with bundled fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_pick_history for non-premium or unfiltered picks), nor does it provide explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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