get_gameweek_status

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

With no annotations, the description must itself convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation via 'Show', but it does not state that it is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what the response shape might be. It is minimally transparent but not exhaustive.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the key action and what it returns. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool with a simple output. It covers the essential information (what is shown) and does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists (though not shown). Minor gap: it does not clarify what 'gameweek' signifies, but that is domain knowledge.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, with no parameters the description cannot add value; the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('gameweeks' and 'deadline'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on different data (e.g., team, fixtures) by explicitly saying 'current, previous, and next gameweeks'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks conditions like 'when you need the current gameweek' or exclusions for other scenarios. Given the presence of many sibling tools, this absence leaves usage decisions to the agent's inference.

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