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.