fpl_manager_history

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent; description adds auth behavior ('works without a key; FPL_SESSION_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and edge case (current empty before GW1). These go beyond the 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?

Structured with a summary line, return schema, notes, example, and auth. Dense but every line earns its place; no fluff. Slightly long but justified by lack of output schema.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description provides full return shape, interpretation of chips, and auth requirements. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers managerId 100% with description; the tool description repeats the required param in an example but doesn't add new semantic detail. Baseline 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?

Description clearly identifies the resource: 'A manager's gameweek-by-gameweek history, past seasons, and chips already used.' It specifies the scope and distinguishes from sibling tools like fpl_manager_picks by focusing on history and chips, not current 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?

Provides clear context: explains that chips shows what has already been played, which lets the user infer availability, and notes that current is empty before gameweek 1. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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