Get pick performance history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the Premium plan requirement, the return JSON shape, and the inclusion of results and closing-line context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two tight paragraphs: the first states purpose and use case, the second outlines arguments and return format. Every sentence carries meaningful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return structure (data with game_picks/prop_picks, meta with counts/date). It also includes the Premium plan requirement and usage guidance. For a 3-parameter tool, this is complete.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (date, type, sport). The description repeats the args ('date ('YYYY-MM-DD'); optional type ('game' | 'prop'); optional sport') but adds no new meaning 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?

The description explicitly states it returns 'publicly-posted picks for a date — game-market and player-prop — each with its result and closing-line context,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'backtest against the actual posted record.'

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 phrase 'Use this to backtest against the actual posted record' provides a clear, concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use, so it lacks exclusions, fitting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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