pl_current_gameweek

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by stating 'static config blob' (implying the value does not change frequently) and explicitly noting 'Auth: none needed', which simplifies invocation. This is useful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences plus return and auth notes. Every element earns its place: it states what the tool returns, labels it as a config blob, and confirms no authentication is required. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-rich tool, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the output format ({matchweek}) and the static nature. However, it does not explain what a matchweek number is or how it might be used (e.g., for scheduling comparisons), which could be helpful for an agent unfamiliar with the domain. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 identifies the resource as 'the current matchweek number' and notes it returns {matchweek}. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', making it slightly less direct. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool focused specifically on the current matchweek.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The phrase 'static config blob' hints that this is a config value rather than live data, but there is no mention of alternatives such as pl_matchweek_matches or pl_metadata. The 'Auth: none needed' line is a prerequisite hint, not a usage guideline.

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