Get Picks Board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context with 'Public — no auth' and the notion of a 'full' board, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, defaults beyond the schema, or why some described filters are absent from the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second half lists filters that mismatch the schema, so not every statement earns its place; a cleaner version would either align the filter list with the actual schema or omit detail.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description gives a reasonable high-level picture but does not fully equip an agent to know what the response looks like or when this board is preferred over related picks tools. The auth disclosure helps, but overall completeness is only adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to explain every parameter. The description adds some filter-range semantics for edge/odds and preview inclusion, but also references 'data-quality ranges' and a 'lineup-confirmed flag' that have no corresponding schema parameters, so it provides no clear added value.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: 'Full picks board for a date.' However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like flab_picks_today, flab_picks_history, or flab_pick_details, and it mentions filters such as 'lineup-confirmed flag' and 'data-quality ranges' that are not present in the input schema, which slightly muddies the intended capability.

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 phrase 'for a date' implies this is the date-scoped board tool, giving some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus flab_picks_today, flab_picks_history, or flab_pick_details, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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