Pick'em player lines

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: it discloses that results contain thresholds only with no accompanying odds, and that authorization is scoped per source on the key. The gaps are minor — no mention of pagination behavior or what happens when a source returns nothing.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information (sources, output nature, auth prerequisite), with the resource stated first. The final sentence 'The key must have the source granted' is slightly elliptical and could be phrased more plainly, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials but leaves the return shape and ordering unstated — an agent does not know whether lines are grouped by player, game, or source, or whether limit truncates arbitrarily. It is adequate to invoke correctly but not to set accurate expectations about results.

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 partially does by clarifying that the enum value 'draftkings' actually means DraftKings Pick6 — a non-obvious mapping the schema alone would not convey. It says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, but its default of 25 and maximum of 200 are self-documenting in the schema, so the omission is tolerable.

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 names the resource precisely (player prop thresholds) and enumerates the data sources it can pull from, which an agent can match against a user request. It also implicitly separates itself from odds-oriented siblings by stating 'Lines only; pick'em boards have no per-line odds', though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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 only explicit condition is the key-permission prerequisite ('The key must have the source granted'), which helps an agent avoid a doomed call. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_odds, get_odds_board, or get_fanduel_markets; the contrast with odds tools is only implied by the 'no per-line odds' caveat.

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