get_role_outlook

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It openly states that the warehouse holds zero rows for players from the NBA or domestic leagues, and explicitly warns 'Do not invent a projection.' It also details exactly what the tool returns (vacated minutes and fantasy points per position, remaining players' minute stability), which is transparent about the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 somewhat longer than two sentences, but every sentence is purposeful. It flows logically from an overview, to usage cases, to limitations, to return structure, to parameter definitions. No fluff or repetition exists, and the structure makes it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete. It explains the core purpose, anticipated use cases, limitations, output details, and parameters. An output schema exists to further clarify the return structure, so the description need not repeat that. The combination of description, schema, and sibling-context makes this a fully-specified tool.

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 schema has no descriptions for team_code or season, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by providing 'team_code: club code from search_teams' and 'season: season code, e.g. "E2025"'. This adds cross-referencing to a sibling tool and an example format, making both parameters clear and actionable.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool provides: 'What minutes and production a club has vacated, by position, plus who remains.' This clearly identifies the resource (role outlook for a club) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_stats or get_player_stats by focusing on vacated roles and remaining player stability. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'This is the tool for "how will player X do at his new club" and for drafting anyone without history in this competition.' It also provides a clear when-not scenario: if a player comes from the NBA or a domestic league, no projection is possible. It further instructs the agent to state the vacated role and let the user supply the player's level, which is strong usage guidance.

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