Pick6 board (keyless)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful traits beyond them — data is delayed, output is capped, and access requires no key or credits. It stops short of quantifying the delay or cap size, and says nothing about pagination or ordering, which would matter for a capped feed.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the two most decision-relevant qualifiers (delayed, capped) before listing contents and access terms. The field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though it could be trimmed.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, but it leaves the magnitude of the delay and the cap unquantified, which directly affects fitness for a user's task. Parameters are fully covered by schema, so remaining gaps are behavioral rather than structural.

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 task, limit, and league are already documented in structured fields. The description's only added hint is "capped," which loosely relates to limit; it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource — the DraftKings Pick6 board — and enumerates what it contains (player, stat, line, multipliers, start time, recent line moves). It is clearly not the same as get_pick6_history or get_pick6_projections by content, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"No key needed, no credits" does give practical selection signal against credit-consuming siblings, implying this is the cheap/public path. It never states when to prefer this over get_pick6_projections or get_pick6_line_history, nor any exclusions, so guidance stays implicit.

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