fpl_gameweeks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of auth requirements ('works without a key; FPL_SESSION_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and the significance of key fields adds behavioral context beyond the structured data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, a comprehensive return schema, usage notes, and auth. It's front-loaded with key information. The field list is long but each element serves a purpose, so it's appropriately sized.

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 read-only tool, this is exceptionally complete. It includes the return schema with field descriptions, clarifies critical fields (deadline_time, is_current/is_next), provides an example, and specifies auth behavior. The agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; it supplements with a detailed return structure and field explanations, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 it returns all 38 gameweeks with deadlines, average scores, highest score, chip usage, and current gameweek. The 'Returns:' block explicitly details the response structure, making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fpl_fixtures and fpl_live_gameweek by focusing on the gameweek calendar and summary data.

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?

Provides actionable context: deadline_time is critical for knowing when transfers lock, and is_current/is_next help locate the season position without date arithmetic. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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