fpl_my_team

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations. It explains the exact return structure, the meaning of selling_price vs purchase_price, edge cases like transfers.status 'unlimited' and chip_type routing, authentication failure (403), and verification against a live squad. This is rich behavioral disclosure that materially assists a correct call.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent paragraphs provide necessary detailed return structures and edge cases. While verbose, every section is informative and not redundant. It is structured logically (purpose, return shape, edge cases, auth, example), though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (one parameter but a rich nested response) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates. It provides a complete inline return schema, explains critical fields, covers two conditional behaviors that affect results, and documents error handling and auth. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter managerId, including its meaning and URL placement. The description adds an example usage and reinforces that it only returns your squad, but this duplicates schema content. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 YOUR current squad including picks not yet visible, bank, free transfers, and chip availability. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like fpl_manager_picks or fpl_manager, though the emphasis on 'YOUR' squad and 'picks not yet visible to others' implies a unique purpose.

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 implies usage for your own squad only (repeatedly says YOUR) and requires an FPL session cookie. It provides context but no explicit comparisons to alternative tools or when-not-to-use. The auth requirement is clear, but there is no mention of cases where another tool would be more appropriate, so guidance is only implied.

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