team_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of information returned (status, chance of playing, official note) and notes that the player filter works even for fit players. However, it does not mention data source, update frequency, or any limitations. Given the absence of annotations, it provides moderate but not exhaustive transparency.

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 and well-structured, with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter explanations. It is free of fluff and front-loaded with the key information an agent needs to decide on invocation.

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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters and a provided output schema, the description covers the essential content of the response and both parameters clearly. It does not elaborate on edge cases or formatting, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'team: Optional club filter (e.g. 'Arsenal' or 'ARS')' and 'player: Optional player name; shows that player's status even if fit.' Both are clearly defined with examples and behavior expectations, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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: 'Injury and availability news: who is injured, doubtful, or suspended, their chance of playing, and the official note.' This is specific and distinguishes it from general player lookups. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_player or search_players, so it isn't a 5.

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 when to use the tool (for injury/availability news) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as get_player or search_players. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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