blank_double_gameweeks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists data but does not mention that it is read-only, any side effects, assumptions about 'upcoming' definitions, or limitations. For a simple list tool this is somewhat acceptable, but without annotations the agent has no safety or side-effect information.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, and every word contributes meaning. Excellent brevity.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema (presumably covering return format). The description adequately states what it does. However, it does not explain domain-specific terms like 'blank' and 'double' gameweeks, nor does it clarify the scope of 'upcoming.' These are minor gaps, but for an AI agent without FPL domain knowledge, additional context would improve completeness.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none exist. No additional semantic value 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('upcoming blank and double gameweeks by club'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, which all address different FPL actions (login, team management, player search, etc.). No confusion about what this tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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