pickem_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well for a read tool: it discloses the mobile-only nature of pick'em and the key semantic that a missing pick is 'silently a zero,' which is behavioral insight not derivable from the schema. It could still note whether the entry requires auth or specific league/roster setup.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a genuinely useful behavioral note, then an Args block. Well-structured and mostly tight, with only mild redundancy between the framing sentence and the args list.

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 read-only status tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and three optional, description-justified params, the definition supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three args: week (0 = current week), pickem_league and pickem_roster defaulting to env vars. This resolves the ambiguous 0/"" defaults in the schema, though it doesn't state the roster type or valid week ranges.

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 resource and outcome: 'Your pick'em entry: which picks are in, and which are missing.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pickem_pick tool, which would be for submitting picks, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Provides clear usage context: pick'em is mobile-app only, so this is often the only way to check an entry from desktop. This tells the agent when the tool is needed, though it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it.

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