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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral value by disclosing the review's analytical content, including a 'luck vs expected points' comparison that an agent could not infer from the name or 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that starts with the use case and then lists the payload. No filler, no restatement 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by naming the five components of the review. Minor gap: it does not mention that only finished gameweeks are reviewed or how results are formatted, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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%: the schema already explains that gw defaults to the last finished gameweek and that team_id accepts a link containing /entry/<id>/. The description adds no param-level detail beyond that, 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('review') with a specific resource ('an FPL manager's gameweek') and enumerates the review's contents (points vs average, captain, bench, transfers, luck vs expected points). That enumeration distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_my_team and rate_my_team 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?

'Use this to review an FPL manager's gameweek' gives a clear triggering intent, but it never names an alternative (rate_my_team, get_my_team) or states when this tool should be skipped. Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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