submit_lineup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses validation behavior, but does not mention side effects (e.g., is submission irreversible?), auth requirements, or error handling. Some transparency exists but significant gaps remain.

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?

A single sentence with 14 words, directly stating purpose and key actions. No extraneous information. Every word 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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It mentions validation but does not describe what happens on success/failure, return format, or prerequisites (e.g., must have a contest and selected players). Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context about validation but does not provide specific meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 action 'Submit your fantasy football lineup' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions validations, which adds detail. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_lineup, so it loses the top score.

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 should be used to submit a lineup after assembly, mentioning validation steps. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., use update_lineup for edits) or alternatives, leaving usage context vague.

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