football_knockout_path

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description adds context: the tool uses simulation, returns probabilities, and notes meta.estimated: true. It also explains the output structure (reach_r32, etc.) and parameter clamping, going beyond the annotation cues.

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 compact with a clear Args/Returns structure, around 5 lines. It avoids excessive verbosity, though the Args section largely duplicates schema info. Slightly more conciseness could be achieved, but it is generally well-structured.

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 has an output schema (not displayed) and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains the output fields (team, reach_r32, etc.) and the simulation clamp. It does not cover simulation assumptions or error handling, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter descriptions from the schema without adding new meaning (e.g., 'clamped to 100..20000' already in schema). No additional semantics or usage examples are given.

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 computes 'Round-by-round survival probabilities for one team in the full sim,' specifying the verb (survival probabilities) and resource (one team in a tournament). This distinguishes it from siblings like football_simulate_bracket (entire bracket) and football_match_predictor (match outcome).

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 the tool is for a single team's knockout path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as football_simulate_bracket or football_match_predictor. No direct usage guidance or exclusions are provided.

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