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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description adds that the content is public and constrains the open-world fetch with a fixed slug allowlist. The explicit exclusion list (no picks, projections, user entries, location data) prevents false expectations about returned content beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the necessary slug enumeration, the discovery pointer, and the scope exclusions. The long slug list is bulky but earns its place because it compensates for the missing enum in the schema; nothing is redundant.

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?

One required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations present, and an output schema that covers return values. The description closes the remaining gaps: valid input values, how to obtain them, and what the response will not contain.

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 would justify a baseline 3, but the schema defines slug only as "Use a supported slug returned by draftkings_pick6_rules" with no enum. The description supplies the full 14-value allowlist (nfl, nba, pga-full-tournament, ... nba-season-long), which is the single most useful piece of information for calling this tool correctly.

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 ("Fetch public scoring and rule sections") scoped to one Pick6 sport/format slug, and explicitly separates itself from draftkings_pick6_rules, which is where slug discovery lives. An agent can tell immediately what this returns and which sibling handles discovery.

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 routes the agent to draftkings_pick6_rules for slug discovery and enumerates the accepted slug values, so the precondition is unambiguous. It also clarifies the negative scope (no picks, projections, entries, or location data), though it doesn't contrast against other Pick6 siblings like draftkings_pick6_sports.

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