get_set_piece_takers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restatement. The description does add behavior beyond that: results are an 'authoritative hierarchy' ordered 'by manager priority', telling the agent that ordering carries meaning rather than being incidental. It stops short of stating freshness or whether the ranking is depth-chart or estimated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by an enumeration that earns its space by defining scope. Slightly dense but free of filler or restated title.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough about return shape (a per-club hierarchy of primary/backup takers by category, priority-ordered) to set expectations. It does not describe per-player fields, but with no output schema that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the single 'club' parameter already documents accepted forms (name or slug) and the omit-to-get-all-20 behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a precisely scoped resource ('authoritative hierarchy of set-piece specialists'), enumerated into penalty takers (primary/backup), direct free-kick takers, and corner specialists. The purpose is unmistakable, but it never names or contrasts a sibling, so differentiation is left implicit by topic rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer you call this when you need dead-ball duties for a club. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusion of adjacent tools like get_predicted_lineup (which may also surface takers), and no stated prerequisites or staleness caveats.

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