fpl_event_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the return structure and the critical meaning of 'bonus_added: false' (scores are provisional and may change). This is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is reasonably compact and well-structured: purpose, return format, key semantic flag, example, and auth. Each sentence contributes value, though the example 'Is this gameweek settled?' is slightly redundant with the opening sentence.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the return shape and the meaning of the key field (bonus_added). However, the possible values for 'points' ('r'|'p'|'l') are not explained, leaving a minor gap in interpretation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but it does mention auth (works without key), which is relevant context for invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check whether bonus points and league tables have been finalised for the current gameweek. It distinguishes from FPL sibling tools by focusing on finalisation status, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'get' or 'check' verb.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to know if scores are FINAL, illustrated by the example 'Is this gameweek settled?'. It also implies when scores might change (bonus_added: false) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use it.

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