get_start_sit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the internal logic (flags injured/bye starters, compares eligible bench players, swap suggested when bench out-projects), states it is purely projection-driven, and warns about its own limitations. It stops short of stating permissions or failure behavior for an unresolvable team.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, parameters are cleanly listed in an Args block, and the behavior paragraph is tight. Slightly verbose relative to what is strictly needed, but every sentence adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the two parameters' semantics and defaults are fully covered. The only minor gap is undocumented edge behavior (unknown/ambiguous team name), which keeps it short of a 5.

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: team_name is documented as fuzzy, case-insensitive substring matching over team or owner name, and week's default is spelled out precisely (upcoming actionable week, rolling to next week if the current week is final).

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 ('Recommend start/sit moves') plus resource and scope ('for a team's lineup for a given week'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_trade_candidates, get_free_agents, or get_team_roster. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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?

It explains the default week behavior and how to interpret output ('treat it as a starting point, not gospel'), which is helpful usage context. However, it never names an alternative sibling or an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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