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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description cannot earn credit there. The description does add genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the data is 'live' and scoped to the 2026/27 season, and the exact content sections are listed. It does not say anything about freshness/caching, response format, or size, so it sits at an adequate rather than rich level.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action and resource first, then the content breakdown. Every listed item is informative content rather than filler, though the enumeration is dense enough to read somewhat like keyword stacking.

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 one optional, fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety and world-boundness, the remaining burden is describing what comes back, and the description does enumerate the briefing's sections in place of a missing output schema. Minor gaps remain around response format and freshness, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already explains the 1-38 range and the default to the next active planning Gameweek. The description adds no further meaning about the gameweek parameter, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a named resource ('Touchline Wire's live 2026/27 FPL Gameweek briefing') and enumerates the exact sections returned (captaincy matrix, differentials, enablers, risers/fallers, yellow-card tightropes, injury flags). An agent knows precisely what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as get_fpl_transfer_trends, get_fpl_picks, or get_injuries_and_suspensions, which cover pieces of the same content.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Gameweek' plus the enumerated planning content signals this is a weekly FPL planning digest, and the schema note about defaulting to the 'next active FPL planning Gameweek' reinforces that. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the several sibling tools that surface transfer trends, picks, or injury data.

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