fpl_dream_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: return payload structure, 404 error semantics until gameweek finishes, and authentication behavior (works without key, FPL_SESSION_COOKIE unlocks more). This exceeds what structured data provides.

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?

Compact and well-structured: one-sentence purpose, Returns block, Example, Auth. Every line adds unique information with no fluff. Front-loaded with the key concept before details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, exact return format, error condition, example, and auth. It fully compensates for missing output schema by listing fields. No gaps identified.

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?

The single parameter 'gameweek' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including type, requirement, and error behavior. The description only adds a usage example, which is helpful but not essential; baseline of 3 applies when schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

Clearly states resource ('highest-scoring XI of a completed gameweek') with specific detail. Distinguishes from siblings like fpl_live_gameweek and fpl_gameweeks by focusing on the final dream team XI per gameweek. Includes return shape, reinforcing purpose.

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 explicit context that the tool requires a COMPLETED gameweek and 404s on unfinished ones, establishing a clear when-not-to-use. Doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., fpl_live_gameweek for live scoring), but the exclusionary timing guidance is strong.

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