football_knockout_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that results are simulation-based via 'meta.estimated: true', but doesn't explain what 'estimated' entails, whether results vary run-to-run without a seed, or cost/latency for 20k iterations.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args/Returns blocks are compact and scannable with no filler. It is slightly padded by restating schema descriptions, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 read-only simulation tool with full schema annotations and an output schema, the definition covers the essential contract, including the shape of the returned data keys and the estimated flag. The main remaining gap is guidance on variability and choosing iteration counts, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the same parameter text verbatim (team codes, clamped iteration range, optional seed) rather than adding new semantics such as seed determinism or what team-name matching tolerates. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents every parameter.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: round-by-round survival probabilities for a single team from Monte Carlo simulation of the tournament. It implicitly contrasts with football_simulate_bracket (whole bracket) by emphasizing 'one team', but doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'one team in the full sim'; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over football_simulate_bracket, football_simulate_group, or football_match_predictor. An agent must infer the choice from the wording alone.

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