fpl_manager_picks

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

The description thoroughly explains behavior beyond the annotations: it documents the return structure, interprets position and multiplier values, notes bench order, and discloses auth requirements. It does not contradict the read-only, idempotent, or open-world hints.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and uses a structured return-shape block that earns its place given there is no output schema. It loses a point because the 'Also answers this' line is confusing and adds noise rather than useful context.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a complete return contract, field-level explanations, an example, and auth behavior. It also leverages the input schema for path and deadline details, so the overall definition is comprehensive for a relatively complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description's example adds a concrete invocation but does not materially expand on what managerId or gameweek mean beyond what the input schema already states.

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 specifies exactly what the tool returns: 'The exact XI, bench order, captain and chip a manager used in a gameweek.' This is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fpl_squad or fpl_manager_history, which cover different FPL 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The cryptic closing line 'Also answers this: espnfantasy_rosters, sleeper_league_rosters, yahoo_team_roster' is unclear and does not provide actionable when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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