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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool is 'Free, no key' and describes the output components it will produce: projection, floor/ceiling, ADP, draft round, value flag, pick recommendation, and market value. This gives an agent a good behavioral picture without revealing hidden side effects.

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?

The description is tight and information-dense: the first sentence covers scope and outputs, and the second sentence gives memorable invocation examples. No filler or redundant restatement 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 a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what output to expect, the supported scoring formats, and how to phrase the request. An agent has enough context to decide and invoke 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 has no structured input parameters, so the schema cannot document them. The description compensates by showing the expected input style through example phrases, making clear that player names and comparison intent are supplied in natural language.

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 clearly states the tool compares 2–4 players, specifies the context (2026 fantasy draft with PPR variants), and lists the comparison dimensions. The example query patterns make the intended use immediately recognizable and distinguish it from siblings like who_do_i_draft.

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 description explicitly says 'Use for' and gives concrete natural-language examples such as 'who should I draft, <A> or <B>'. It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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