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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value: results come back in rank order, rows carry DFS salary/value and position-specific stat columns, DAILY requires a slate_id, and large tables must be paged. It omits the pagination cap and default page size, but those are in the 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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second covers usage, slate_id gating, and paging. Nothing repeats the schema description.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes row shape helpfully. For an 11-parameter, five-sport tool it covers the essential gating rules (type, slate_id for DAILY, pagination) that an agent needs before calling.

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% and each parameter already documents itself, including "required for DAILY" for slate_id and the pointer to fanduel_research_projection_tables for type. The description only restates the type-to-slate_id relationship, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get FanDuel Research (numberFire) fantasy projections"), enumerates the sports covered, and describes the row shape (player, team, game, salary, value, stat columns) plus the ordering (rank order). An agent can distinguish this from sibling research tools such as fanduel_research_quick_picks_daily or fanduel_research_player_news without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ("lineup building or player comparison") and procedural guidance ("choose a type, add a slate_id for DAILY, and page through large tables"). It stops short of naming a when-not or an explicit alternative sibling to use instead, so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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