fpl_manager

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: optional auth via FPL_SESSION_COOKIE, the detailed return structure, and the unit clarification for last_deadline_value/bank. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 organized into distinct sections (summary, return shape, unit note, example, auth) and front-loads the primary purpose. The return structure is verbose but necessary since no output schema exists. No filler sentences are present.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the full return object, units, auth behavior, and gives a concrete example. The only minor omission is the exact effect of the session cookie on the response, but this does not prevent correct invocation or 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?

Schema coverage for managerId is 100% and the schema already explains it thoroughly. The description's example merely restates the parameter and adds no new format or syntax information beyond the schema, so it does not elevate above the baseline.

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 returns a manager's squad summary including overall rank, points, and leagues. It uses a specific resource ('manager's squad') and identifies the core outputs, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling fpl tools like fpl_manager_history or fpl_manager_picks.

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 implied via the described purpose (use this to get a manager's squad summary), but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives. The auth note (works without a key; cookie unlocks more) is useful but not a substitute for selection guidance.

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