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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description still adds useful behavior: results arrive newest-first, and access is scoped to what 'this member may read' across any account including free ones. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when the 500-row ceiling truncates results.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: what the tool returns, how to narrow it, and who it serves. The identifying phrase 'The archive:' is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 does the right thing by naming the return fields and the sort order, which is what an agent needs to consume results. It could have said more about row limits and truncation given the 500 maximum, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description repeats the ISO 8601 format hint without adding syntax detail. The listed return fields (closedAt, priceAtClose, returnPct) are output, not parameters, and book/limit go unmentioned — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: an archive of closed positions readable by this member, ordered newest first. The word 'closed' implicitly separates it from picks_open, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

'Use since or closedSince (ISO 8601) to narrow' gives filtering guidance, and 'Answers any account, free included' signals scope. However, it never says when to prefer this over picks_open or picks_today, and gives no guidance on when the unfiltered archive is appropriate.

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