Get Today's Picks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no authentication is required, the default rating is Good, and supported markets are enumerated. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden, and the added auth/default info earns a solid score.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by defaults, market examples, and access requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only fetch with only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, date default, rating default, market filtering, and auth. A minor gap is that the return shape is not described, but the low complexity and clear purpose make the definition sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the UTC date default, the Good rating default, and giving concrete market examples (H2H, OU2.5, BTTS, AsianHandicap, DoubleChance). This clarifies parameter usage beyond property descriptions alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('FutPicks' published picks') and clearly scopes the operation to a date, defaulting to today UTC. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like flab_picks_board or flab_picks_history, but the date-based focus is evident from the name and description.

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 clear usage context: date defaults to today UTC, the public board defaults to Good-rated picks, and no auth is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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