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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does convey key behavioral context — output is a 15-man squad, constrained by a budget in £m and FPL rules — but says nothing about whether the squad is persisted, what permissions are needed, or how the gameweeks horizon affects the result.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the deliverable (best 15-man squad) and then the constraints. No filler, though it is arguably slightly terse given the two undocumented parameters.

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 2-param optimizer with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the deliverable and budget basis but leaves the gameweeks parameter and the persistence/mutation behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0% across 2 params. The description clarifies that budget is denominated in £m, adding meaning beyond the bare 'Budget' field, but the 'gameweeks' parameter (default 3) is never explained — a meaningful omission since its role in the optimization is non-obvious.

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+resource: build the best 15-man squad from scratch under a budget, following FPL rules. The phrase 'from scratch (e.g. a Wildcard)' implicitly distinguishes it from transfer/optimization siblings like suggest_transfers, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 'from scratch (e.g. a Wildcard)' cue implies the scenario in which to use it (a fresh squad rather than incremental transfers), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings.

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