football_simulate_group

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it runs Monte Carlo simulations, clamps iterations, and returns estimated probabilities with conditioned matches locked in. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the algorithm and return characteristics.

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?

Description is very concise (two paragraphs plus a bulleted return list). Front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 output schema exists (not shown but referenced), the description adequately explains the return structure. It covers inputs, behavior, and outputs. Could mention default iteration value explicitly in the description text, but it's in the schema.

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% with both parameters described. The description replicates the schema's arg descriptions ('group: Group letter A-L.', 'iterations: Number of simulations (clamped to 100..20000).'). No additional semantic value beyond schema.

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?

Purpose is clear and specific: 'Monte Carlo one group's round-robin -> per-team qualification probabilities.' It uses a specific verb ('simulate'), resource ('group'), and outcome (qualification probabilities). Distinguishes from siblings like football_simulate_bracket.

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 implied by the tool name and description (for group stage simulation), but no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like football_simulate_bracket or football_match_predictor. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites mentioned.

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