Get Track Record

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: filters are AND-combined, data is historical and settled, and the tool is public with no auth. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences deliver the resource, filter semantics, return metrics, and auth status with no filler. The most distinguishing details are front-loaded.

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 seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return metrics well. It doesn't specify default behavior when no filters are passed, but that gap is minor given schema coverage.

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?

The schema covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that filters are AND-combined, which is not evident from individual schema properties, and it clarifies the outcome enum values. It omits isLive in prose, but the schema documents it.

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 the resource as historical settled-pick performance and states it returns hit rate, profit, and ROI, which differentiates it from sibling tools like flab_picks_history. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-driven statement, and it doesn't name any sibling to disambiguate.

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 implies this tool is for performance metrics on settled picks, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives. With 16 siblings including flab_picks_history and flab_backtest_run, the guidance is left to inference.

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