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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, which lowers the disclosure burden. The description adds useful behavioral detail: rankings are ordered by points per game and cover a specific position set. It does not mention pagination, response shape, or data freshness, but these are less critical given the annotations and output 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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core function, then gives a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only rankings tool, the description covers purpose, ordering, positions, and example queries. The output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only minor gap is not mentioning defaults for limit and scoring_format, but those are already in the schema.

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%, with meaningful parameter descriptions (e.g., flex covers RB, WR, and TE together). The description repeats the position list but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 function: returning fantasy football rankings for a position in a given scoring format, ordered by points per game. It enumerates all supported positions and provides concrete example queries ('who are the best X', draft board questions). This distinguishes it from other player-related tools, though siblings are not named.

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 gives a usage context: answering 'who are the best X' and helping with draft board questions. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like get_positional_scarcity or get_adp_market_gaps, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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