get_free_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the ranking rule ('Sorted by projected points (falling back to average points)'), which is genuinely useful and not derivable from the schema. It says nothing about permissions, league-scoping, or freshness of the underlying data, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args formatting is slightly verbose relative to the one-line summary, but no sentence is wasted and both parameters earn their mention.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and both inputs are documented. What is missing is only surrounding context such as league scoping or data recency, which matters given the absence of annotations but is not critical for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: it supplies the accepted position values (QB, RB, WR, TE, K, DST) that the schema's unconstrained string type omits, and restates the limit default of 10 with its meaning. This is real information added beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource: 'List the top available free agents.' An agent immediately knows this returns unsigned players ranked by value. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearest sibling (get_trade_candidates), which an agent might plausibly confuse it with.

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 hints at usage via 'Omit for all' for position and the default limit, which implies a browse-then-filter workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. a league must be loaded), and no routing toward or away from sibling tools.

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