fpl_teams

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context: the id is FPL's own 1-20, strength ratings are internal (~1000-1400), and auth works without a key. It does not mention potential errors or staleness, but for a simple zero-param tool this is adequate.

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 with main description, return schema, id/strength notes, example, and auth. It is a bit lengthy but every section provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with no parameters and no output schema: it explains the return structure, the id mapping, the strength rating scale, and authentication. No important details are missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain input semantics. It provides an example and notes on authentication, which is helpful. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 the 20 Premier League clubs with FPL's attack/defence strength ratings. It uses specific terms like 'FPL's attack/defence strength ratings' and explains the id is FPL's own 1-20, not the official PL id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_teams.

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: it provides FPL-specific club data and strength ratings, and suggests joining to the premierleague provider by name for integration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fpl_fixtures or pl_teams, nor provide exclusions.

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