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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior — results exist only for settled, publicly visible days, so unsettled dates yield nothing. The remaining sentences are compliance boilerplate (21+, no guaranteed wins) rather than behavior, which adds little for the agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the useful scope and payload in the first two sentences, which is good. The trailing 21+/no-wins/no-bets disclaimers consume roughly a third of the text without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 lists the returned fields (commitment hashes, selections, odds, results) and the settled/public constraint. Missing only edge-case detail such as what an unsettled or out-of-range date returns.

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% and the single 'date' parameter is documented with the same YYYY-MM-DD format the description repeats. No additional semantics (timezone, what constitutes a valid day) are added beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: returns settled picks/results for a single day, and enumerates the payload (main pick, extras, commitment hashes, selections, odds, results). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_record or verify_pick, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 constraint 'Only days that are already settled and public are returned' implicitly tells the agent this is for post-hoc lookup, not live picks, which is useful guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus get_record, verify_pick or expected_value, leaving routing to inference.

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