Pitch Time — Fair Youth Soccer Lineups

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low; the description still adds real substance by enumerating the computed outputs and defining the scope boundary (equal-share math, no goalkeeper adjustments). It doesn't mention error or edge-case behavior, but the boundary statement is meaningful added context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the computed outputs and closed with the scoping caveat. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is that with 0% parameter coverage, nothing in the description compensates for the undocumented format/rosterSize/gameMinutes inputs.

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%, so the schema gives only types, ranges, and one enum with no explanation. The description never mentions format (7v7/9v9/11v11), gameMinutes, or rosterSize, so the agent gets no help on what the format enum means or how roster size interacts with bench size.

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?

Specific verb (calculate) plus resource (playing time) and an explicit enumeration of outputs: minutes, percentage per player, bench size, segment length, and 50% minimum check. The closing clause hints it differs from generate_fair_lineup by excluding goalkeeper constraints, though it doesn't name that sibling directly.

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 'before any goalkeeper constraints' implies a sequencing relationship with lineup/constraint siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of generate_fair_lineup or recommend_formation. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: output is deterministic, it produces substitution windows/player minutes/printable link, and it handles duplicate names via suffixes. It stops short of noting limits such as player-count bounds or formation fallback behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before secondary behaviors like printing and name deduplication. No filler, though the return-format sentence is partly redundant given the output schema exists.

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 an 8-parameter deterministic generator with an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral edges (determinism, duplicate names, GK fallback) and omits return-value detail the output schema already supplies. An agent has enough 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%, so most parameters are self-documented (periods, gameMinutes, goalkeeper rotation all carry descriptions). The description clarifies duplicate-name suffixing and the no-GK fallback, which lightly enriches players/goalkeepers semantics, but the bulk of parameter meaning stays in the 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?

"Create a deterministic rotation with balanced minutes, goalkeeper duties and preferred positions" gives a specific verb and resource with the key axes of the operation. It does not reference the sibling tools (calculate_playing_time, recommend_formation), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus calculate_playing_time or recommend_formation. The mention of behavior without designated goalkeepers is a conditional, not a usage rule, so the agent is left to infer context.

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?

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the precedence resolution between format and ageGroup, the default style/format applied when inputs are absent, and the fact that the response includes alternatives and coaching notes. No return format or determinism detail beyond that.

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 and zero waste. The what-is-it clause comes first, the resolution rule and default follow immediately, and every phrase carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still mentions alternatives and coaching notes. All three optional parameters are addressed at least indirectly (format-age mapping, style default, age as a string example). Only the style enum values remain semantically unexplained.

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 only 33% (only ageGroup is documented), so the description has to carry the load, and it does: it maps 7v7/9v9/11v11 to U8-U10, U11-U12, and U13+, and it establishes the precedence of format over ageGroup plus the 'balanced' default that gives meaning to the style enum. It does not explain the attacking/defensive style options themselves.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it selects a formation and enumerates the supported playing formats (7v7, 9v9, 11v11) with age bands, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It also names the deliverables (alternatives plus coaching notes). It never mentions the sibling tools, so there is no explicit differentiation, though the resource itself is distinct from playing-time or lineup tooling.

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 supplies concrete selection rules: explicit format takes precedence over age, and it falls back to a balanced 7v7 when nothing is given. That is clear usage context for a tool with all-optional parameters. It stops short of stating when not to use it or when a sibling tool is the better fit.

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