mfl_projected_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses the data source (third-party fantasysharks), warns that projections are an input not a forecast, and explains auth behavior (works without key, cookie unlocks more). This exceeds what annotations provide.

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: it opens with a clear purpose, then provides the return format, an example, and auth notes. It is efficient without being overly terse, and the example front-loads practical usage. Slightly longer than strictly necessary given the schema, but each section earns its place.

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 tool with 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the return shape, an example, auth requirements, and a caution about projection reliability. It doesn't explain every parameter, but the schema does. It covers the essentials an agent needs for correct invocation, though it could mention default week behavior more explicitly (though it's in the schema).

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description (e.g., PLAYERS is 'Player ids to project, comma-separated'). The description adds an example illustrating parameter usage and the default week behavior, but it largely restates what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, a 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 projects fantasy points for named players under a league's rules. It distinguishes itself from related MFL tools like mfl_player_scores by emphasizing 'projected' (forward-looking) versus actual scores, and it explicitly mentions the league context, which clarifies the scope.

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 the tool is for lineup decisions needing projections ('the forward-looking number a lineup decision needs') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative tools like mfl_player_scores or mfl_live_scoring. It lacks a 'when not to use' clause or named alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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