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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the data source (BankrollSZN projections) and, importantly, the return format ('Returns DK ids in slot order'), which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 dense but well-ordered sentences: purpose and data source first, return format last. Given twelve parameters, the length is efficient, though the feature list is packed into one unbroken sentence.

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 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the lineup structure and return format well but omits how mode, lineups count, game/slate_id and own_lambda are meant to be used, so an agent still guesses on those 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It maps roughly seven of twelve params (locks, excludes, captain, unique lineups, salary floor, ownership cap, per-team cap), but leaves game, mode (gpp/cash), lineups, slate_id and own_lambda entirely unexplained, including value semantics.

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: 'Builds DraftKings WNBA classic lineups ... or showdown lineups ... from the BankrollSZN projections.' The lineup formats are spelled out concretely. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like invoke_wnba_showdown or invoke_nba_optimizer, leaving that routing to the agent.

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?

Guidance is only implicit: naming locks, excludes, captain, etc. hints at how the tool is configured but never says when to pick this over invoke_wnba_showdown or invoke_wnba_projections. No when-not or prerequisite statements are present.

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