get_value_board

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

The description discloses what information the tool returns (startable player counts per position and the last startable player's projection). It does not mention side effects, but given the nature of the content, it is inferred to be read-only. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden adequately.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose ('Replacement levels and tier structure') and then elaborates with specific details, maintaining clarity without unnecessary verbosity.

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 adequately explains the tool's output conceptually, covering key aspects such as player counts per position and projections. However, it does not define 'replacement levels' explicitly, which might be assumed domain knowledge. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. The description correctly omits any parameter details, and there is no missing information in this dimension.

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's purpose: providing replacement levels and tier structure for the league. It expands on this by explaining why rankings look the way they do, which is a specific and unambiguous function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_draft_state, get_available_players). It implies a use case for understanding rankings, but lacks direct contrast or guidance on selection.

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