get_fpl_picks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is reduced, yet it adds essentially no behavioral context of its own. It never says how many recommendations come back, in what order they are ranked, what each mode actually selects for, or what 'xmins' means, so the agent learns nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the season and resource appear before the filter list. The parenthetical enumerations duplicate the schema slightly, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all five optional parameters, and the season context in one sentence, but the mode semantics ('xmins', 'captains') remain unexplained, which matters for a recommendations tool with no output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the club slug format and the enum values, making 3 the baseline. The description restates those enums and units rather than adding meaning, such as what distinguishes 'differentials' from 'value' or 'captains', or how max_ownership interacts with mode.

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 names a specific verb ('Filter') and a specific resource ('2026/27 FPL player recommendations'), and enumerates the filter dimensions, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_fpl_transfer_trends or audit_fpl_players. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those closest siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: the agent can infer this is the tool for getting filtered player recommendations, but nothing states when to prefer it over audit_fpl_players or get_fpl_transfer_trends. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or notes that all filters are optional and combine conjunctively.

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