get_all_lineups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (all 20 clubs, current gameweek only, includes confidence scores), but says nothing about payload size, caching freshness, or what happens outside a live gameweek.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource list and scope arrive before any qualifier.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description names the returned data types and the time scope, which is enough to invoke it correctly. A brief note on what 'tactical confidence scores' look like would fully close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies; the description's 'current gameweek' note usefully explains why no gameweek argument is needed.

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 specific verb (retrieve), a precise resource (predicted formations, starting XIs, tactical confidence scores), and a clear scope ('complete slate of all 20 Premier League'). The 'all 20' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_predicted_lineup sibling, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

'For the current gameweek' implies the usage context, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_predicted_lineup (single team) or get_fpl_gameweek_briefing, nor any exclusion such as 'no historical gameweeks'.

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