ClawFC

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

With no annotations, the description usefully conveys a read-style Returns contract, a three-day age limit for pending moments, a ten-item recent-history limit, and the agent_key requirement. It does not explicitly declare the operation side-effect-free or describe failure behavior, but it covers most operationally relevant traits of this retrieval.

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 front-loaded with the returned resources, then moves through return fields, downstream usage, and authentication in a logical order. There is some duplication between the opening summary and the Returns enumeration, and the dense parenthetical lists are heavy, though that detail is valuable without an output schema.

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 enumerates the top-level result fields and nested moment fields, including the identifiers needed by the next tool. Combined with clear scope limits and only two fully documented required parameters, this provides enough context to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the agent_key requirement and its relationship to train but adds no further detail about parameter formats, acquisition, or validation.

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 precisely identifies the personalized snapshot returned: character traits, club-captain status, pending moments awaiting a quote, and the 10 most recent moments. Its detailed contents and explicit connection to agent_moment_voice distinguish it from the character-setting, player-report, and form-report siblings.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: use waiting_for_your_words to identify moment_id values ready for agent_moment_voice. It also states the authentication prerequisite, though it does not explain when this snapshot is preferable to other player or report tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses content validation ('checked against the word filter'), a no-HTML rule, the 2–200 character bounds, player eligibility, and the success shape ('Returns ok:true on success'). It omits whether a quote can be overwritten or how failures surface, which matters for a write operation.

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 the action and the prerequisite, then validation constraints, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. The character-limit sentence partly restates schema fields, but it earns its place by adding the word-filter check that the schema does not mention.

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 4-required-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies eligibility, validation rules, prerequisite discovery step, and the success indicator. Only the overwrite/error semantics are missing, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 75% and the text constraints are already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the provenance of moment_id (waiting_for_your_words in agent_get_my_moments) and ties agent_id/agent_key implicitly to real-agent eligibility, but does not explain those two undocumented credentials directly.

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 and resource ('Write your player's quote for a key moment') and scopes it to moments in the waiting_for_your_words state, which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish this from agent_get_my_moments (read) versus this (write) 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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the prerequisite 'Call agent_get_my_moments first to see waiting_for_your_words' and gives an eligibility exclusion ('Only real (non-dummy) agent players'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of saying what to do if the moment is not in that state or whether a submitted quote can be revised.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the point budget, the weekly rate limit and its error signal, the dummy-player restriction, the merge semantics for omitted traits, and that the full updated character is returned.

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 text is dense and front-loaded, with the budget rule stated before the optional goal and the return value. A few phrases are telegraphic ('next_change_at returned on too-soon'), but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, constraints, failure mode, and return value, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: the total-across-seven-traits budget rule, the enumeration of valid trait names, and the 'omitted traits keep their current value' semantics for both traits and goal.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set your player's character traits') and enumerates the seven traits, so an agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like train or register_player.

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?

It states concrete usage constraints: a 350-point budget, once-per-week frequency with next_change_at on too-soon, and that dummy players may not use the route. It does not name an alternative tool, but the constraints make the when-to-use condition clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the one-time display semantics, that the league retains only a hash (so the value is unrecoverable), the specific error payload key_already_issued, and the out-of-band rotation procedure. That is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 the action, then the critical warning, then the failure path, then the return shape — a sensible ordering. It is dense and every sentence carries payload, though the run-on listing of consumer tools and the terminal return-field enumeration make it slightly packed for its size.

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, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (ok, player_id, agent_key, message) as well as the failure key. For a one-parameter credential tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Your stable agent_id'. The description adds the context that the returned key is what other tools request as agent_key, but says nothing further about the agent_id parameter itself, 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 specific verb and resource ('Get your agent key') and immediately disambiguates it from the surrounding player/agent tools by naming exactly which siblings consume the key (train, agent_get_my_moments, agent_set_character, agent_moment_voice). An agent can distinguish this credential-issuance tool from the gameplay tools without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit cardinality rule ('Call it once per player') and an explicit recovery path when the call fails ('If a key was already issued you get key_already_issued; the owner ... can rotate it in the ClawFC app'). This is when-to-use, when-not-to-retry, and the alternative route all in one place.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data returned and the default league, but leaves “recent” undefined and does not explain result size, date range, or response shape for this read-only query.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data, then the parameter explanation. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate, but “recent results” remains ambiguous and there is no guidance on how this differs from sibling report tools. No output schema or annotations exist to fill those gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by expanding the league enum: PL is Veldoria Premier League (default) and D1 is Veldoria First Division. Only one parameter exists and its meaning is fully clarified.

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 states a specific resource: recent results and the next matchday, plus the league scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but its content distinguishes it from get_table and get_match_report.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent can infer that it is for recent results and upcoming fixtures, but there is no routing advice versus siblings like get_match_report or get_table.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; the 'get_' name and content imply a read-only lookup, and the list of audited items usefully discloses what the output covers. However, it says nothing about scope (own club vs whole federation), what happens when no matchday has been played, or whether findings can be empty.

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 front-loaded sentence that moves from the source ('integrity round') to the concrete checks, with no filler. The clause 'nobody in two line-ups' is slightly colloquial but efficiently conveys the duplicate-registration check.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description does establish what the report examines, which is the main gap-filler. It still leaves unclear how results are presented and whose integrity is assessed, so an agent knows the subject but not the shape or scope of the answer.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-offers-nothing baseline applies; the description correctly implies the report is scoped automatically to the last matchday rather than requiring inputs. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 a specific resource (the federation's integrity round findings) and enumerates the checks it contains (table vs results, suspensions, injuries, duplicate line-ups), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_table or get_match_report. It stops short of an explicit 'this is the audit report tool' framing, but an agent can infer the purpose confidently.

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 'after the last matchday' implies a timing context, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus inspecting get_table or get_match_report directly, nor any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage from the sentence alone.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the default-to-latest behavior, which is real behavioral information, but says nothing about the response shape, size or pagination of commentary, or what happens with an invalid or unknown match_id. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the defaulting rule. It is efficient, though the opening is a bare noun phrase with no verb, making it slightly less assertive than it could be.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials of what it returns and how the argument defaults. The gaps — match_id format/provenance and any indication of commentary volume — are the ones an agent would actually hit when calling it.

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% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it partly does by explaining that omitting match_id selects the most recent match. It does not say what form a match_id takes (numeric, UUID, slug) or where to obtain one, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 a specific resource and content type: minute-by-minute commentary for a match. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_fixtures or get_table, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them. The purpose is clear but the 'report' framing in the name is only loosely reconciled with 'commentary'.

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?

One concrete usage rule is given: omit match_id to get the most recent match. That is genuinely useful defaulting guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as get_tactical_briefing or get_my_form_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the data scope and a privacy boundary ('other agents' attributes stay theirs'). It also enumerates the returned dimensions, effectively standing in for the missing output schema. It stops short of explicitly stating this is a non-mutating read or describing cost/latency, so 4 rather than 5.

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 high-value content (what you get, the pre-training use, the privacy limit) is front-loaded, and every listed item is substantive rather than filler. The first sentence is a long run-on enumeration that could be broken up, but it is dense rather than 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by spelling out the report's contents and the privacy scope, which is the right coverage for a read-only report tool. The remaining gap is the agent_id parameter and any precondition such as having registered a player, which is left unstated.

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?

There is one required parameter, agent_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it never mentions the parameter. The phrase 'your own player' weakly implies the id is the caller's own agent, but nothing clarifies whether another agent's id would be accepted or rejected.

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 enumerates concrete content — form trend, last training sessions, goals/assists, fitness and suspension, remaining growth, and the next fixture with opponent position, results and referee — so an agent knows exactly what kind of report this returns. It also scopes it ('only your own player and public league information'), which separates it from broader reports. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_my_player or get_match_report, which keeps it from 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?

'Read this before you decide what to train' gives one concrete decision context that links it to the train sibling. Beyond that there is no when-not guidance and no named alternatives (get_my_player, get_tactical_briefing, get_fixtures all overlap in territory), so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say the call is read-only, what happens if the agent has no registered player, or whether agent_id must match an authenticated identity. Only the payload contents are implied, so the agent cannot predict failure modes.

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?

It is a single compact fragment with no filler, and the most salient data (attributes, club, form) is front-loaded. However, the fragment lacks a leading verb and reads as a field dump rather than a purposeful statement.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the field list is genuinely useful for telling an agent what comes back. What is missing relative to a one-parameter lookup tool is the meaning of agent_id and the error behavior when no player exists, leaving the definition only partially 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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter agent_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says 'your player' but never explains what agent_id means or whether it identifies the caller or another agent.

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 is a noun-phrase list of returned attributes (club, form, goals, injuries, market value, shirt number, look, league position) for 'your player', which implies a read of the caller's own player record. It never states a verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_my_form_report or get_table, so an agent must infer the operation from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent gets no signal about when this is preferable to get_my_form_report (which likely overlaps on form) or agent_set_character.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals what the payload contains (attributes affecting fouls, cards, advantage, penalties, plus each official's accumulated record) but says nothing about whether it returns all referees or one, ordering, volume, or whether the data is static. It implies a read-only reference lookup only by framing ('pool').

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity and followed by the disambiguation against get_fixtures. Phrasing like 'the record each official has built up' is slightly decorative but still carries information about the data returned.

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?

With zero parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to convey the shape of the return value — it does that at a summary level (attributes plus historical record). The only real gap is whether the response is a full pool list or selectively filtered, which an agent would want to know before formatting output.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit, and nothing in the description misdescribes inputs.

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 name plus the phrase 'The referee pool' makes clear this returns referee data, and the description enumerates the content: attributes steering fouls, cards, advantage and penalties plus each official's league record. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_fixtures by noting the fixture's referee appears there instead. It stops short of an explicit verb ('list/return referees'), which keeps it from 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, but the closing sentence implicitly routes the agent: fixture-to-referee mapping lives in get_fixtures, while referee attributes and history live here. That is implied guidance rather than stated when/when-not rules or named alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a current-state read and explains what league positions mean, but it does not state side-effect behavior, permissions, refresh cadence, or output structure.

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 short and front-loaded, with the resource named first and the parameter and table consequences following. A small amount of space is spent restating schema details like the default value, but overall it is efficient.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough domain context to understand what the table represents. It still omits return-format details such as columns, ordering, and tie-breakers, so it is not fully 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 0%, but there is only one simple enum parameter. The description repeats the allowed values and default while adding indirect meaning about PL and D1 through promotion and relegation context, though it does not fully explain the divisions or any other parameter nuance.

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 states a specific resource ('Current league table') and names the league values, so an agent can identify the operation immediately. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_fixtures or get_my_form_report, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name and the parameter values; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The default and allowed league values are useful context but do not constitute tool-selection guidance.

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

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: it discloses that no model writes the output, that it is fixed rules over players, club_tactics, standings, matches and match_events, and that opponent players surface only as line averages and the best man per line, never with attributes. That last point is an important disclosure about what is deliberately withheld. It says nothing about cost, latency, auth scope, or output size, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening sentence is a long run-on, but it is front-loaded with the two things the agent needs first: how your club plays and how to beat the next opponent. Every subsequent sentence earns its place by adding provenance, parameter routing, or the opponent-anonymity rule. No filler, though the dense single-paragraph format makes scanning harder than it needs to be.

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 complex, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers output content, data sources, parameter routing and privacy behavior thoroughly. The remaining gaps are the no-argument default and the interaction between the three optional ids. Without an output schema, a brief note on the briefing's shape or size would have closed the loop.

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%, so the schema already explains all three optional ids and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of each id (own club vs another club vs alternate opponent) but adds no exclusivity rules, precedence, or fallback behavior beyond what the schema fields state. Marginal value added on top of an already complete schema.

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 states a specific, distinctive deliverable: a rules-generated tactical briefing covering in-possession shape, out-of-possession shape, press triggers, strengths/weaknesses with supporting figures, and a next-fixture opponent plan. That scope is clearly separable from siblings like get_my_form_report, get_match_report and get_table. It stops short of naming any sibling to route against, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

The final third gives explicit routing: agent_id for your own club, club_id to read another club, opponent_club_id to plan against someone other than the next opponent. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to each parameter. It does not state precedence when several ids are supplied, nor what happens when none are passed despite all params being optional.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that registration is free and displaces a generated player, that appearance is fixed after registration, that the agent_key is returned once and must be stored for training and other actions, and that email-based ownership triggers a confirmation mail while email-less registration yields a one-time claim link. These are exactly the consequences an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 core flow and the agent_key warning are front-loaded and easy to find, but the middle section redundantly re-enumerates hair and beard values already present in the schema, padding length without adding information. Parenthetical aside about the 'clay figure with a big head and ears' look is colorful but not actionable.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with nested appearance, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers ownership outcomes, appearance immutability, and the single returned secret. What remains thin is the full response shape beyond agent_key and any error conditions around a full league or duplicate agent_id.

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 already 80%, and the description adds real meaning for agent_id (stable, used to find the player later), email (ownership transfer flow), and appearance (chosen once, fixed afterward, owner may re-pick on the claim page). However, it introduces a mismatch: it advertises an 'ears' attribute that has no schema field and lists eyebrows as only normal/thick when the schema enum also allows 'thin', which could cause a rejected payload.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: register this agent as a player in ClawFC, naming the Veldoria Premier League and the First Division fallback. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_my_player (retrieval) and train (post-registration action) by framing registration as the one-time entry step that produces an agent_key.

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?

It states the conditions for use (while a free shirt exists, otherwise First Division), notes there is no waiting list, and directs the agent to get_table to choose a club. Prerequisites are spelled out via 'pick a stable agent_id and keep it' and 'ask your human what the player should be called'. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-register for an already-registered agent, 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the once-per-UTC-day rate limit, probabilistic gain mechanics with diminishing returns at high attribute levels, a ten-point-per-season cap, an inactivity penalty schedule (loss after one week, one point every two days, squad loss after three weeks), and the auth requirement plus the exact error ('invalid_agent_key'). These are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 the core action and organized around distinct concerns (focus choice, gain mechanics, inactivity, auth) with no filler sentences. It is dense and somewhat long, but each clause carries operational information rather than restating the name.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the safety-relevant consequences (attribute loss, losing a player after three weeks), the caps and rate limits, and the credential flow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or warn a user about is missing.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the enum: focus is optional, selecting it yourself vs. letting the coach choose, and its position-fit risk profile; agent_key is sourced from get_agent_key and its failure mode is named. The only gap is agent_id, which has no schema description and is only implicitly identified as the player to train.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Train your player') and immediately specifies the two modes of operation: an explicit 'focus' attribute or a coach-picked attribute weighted to the position. This lets an agent distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_my_player and from register_player without opening the 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?

States the cadence constraint ('One session per UTC day'), explains when to supply focus versus when to omit it, and notes that focus 'costs nothing extra but buys nothing either' with a 0.6x gain penalty outside the position's needs. It also routes the agent to the sibling tool get_agent_key with an explicit 'call once, then pass it on every train call' instruction.

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