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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'published' qualifier and the sport exclusion, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but well structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a paginated, parameter-rich list tool (8 params, 1 required) the description omits pagination and season/model semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It names only position, week, and scoring format (3 of 8) and leaves season, limit, offset, model, and sport entirely undefined with no format or pagination guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return published weekly fantasy football rankings') and scopes it to one position, week, and scoring format. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools (get_season_rankings, get_player_rankings) to sharpen the distinction.

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 for start/sit comparisons or a ranked position list' supplies a concrete use case, and the explicit exclusion 'does not support basketball' rules out a plausible misuse. No alternative tool is named for adjacent needs like season-long rankings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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