Get Track Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: internal Weak/Avoid picks are never published yet still appear in overall totals, and premium* fields are scoped to Good+. It also discloses that no auth is required. Missing only rate limits/volume notes.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the payload description before the scoping and filter details. Every clause carries information, though the tier-semantics sentence is heavy and would benefit from being split. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: headline metrics, rating breakdown, daily results and recent picks are all named. Parameter behavior for the tricky tier case is also covered. Nothing about result limits, sorting, or date-range defaults is specified, which leaves a small gap.

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 schema already documents each parameter's type and format. The description goes beyond it by explaining the semantic effect of the tier filter on the returned fields and restating the supported filter axes (league, tier, stat type, date range). That marginal meaning justifies a 4.

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 (Get) and resource (PropLab's historical pick performance) and enumerates the return fields: hit rate, profit, rating breakdown, daily results, recent Good+ picks. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (e.g., proplab_backtest_summary), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives real semantic guidance: without a tier filter the totals cover all tiers while premium* fields cover Good+, and with a tier filter every headline field describes that tier. That tells an agent when the tier parameter materially changes the answer. It does not state when to prefer this over the backtest_* siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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