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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the quota behavior ("uses no analysis quota"), defines what the squad snapshot means ("current picks plus transfers already made for the next deadline"), describes alert ordering, and explains the conditional availability signal ("elitePulse.access reports availability"). Not covered: data freshness/caching or what happens when no squad is linked, which would matter for an authenticated-account read.

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 contents, then the elitePulse caveat, then the exclusion — a sensible order. It is dense and run-on in places (the alert-ordering clause and the Elite selling/price-move list), but every sentence carries information an agent needs to interpret the response.

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, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does — naming the alerts collection, its ordering rule, and the elitePulse object with its access field. Combined with the quota note and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema carries nothing that needs elaboration and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add.

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?

"Check the authenticated user's linked FPL squad for the next gameweek" names a specific verb, resource, and scope, then enumerates the concrete payload (injury/suspension flags, blank gameweeks, price predictor, next fixture difficulty). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as compare_fplai_players and get_fplai_fixtures.

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 states the boundary: "It does not recommend transfers; for transfers or a captain pick, use run_fplai_analysis, and only when the user asks." That names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, plus an extra gating condition on user intent.

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