generate_readiness_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the report components, dimension weights, and output categories. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites, but for a read-only report generator this is reasonable.

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 description is two paragraphs, concise but packed with useful detail. It front-loads the purpose and then lists dimensions and outputs effectively. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers return values. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for prior API valuation), but otherwise provides a solid overview of what the tool produces.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'league_id' described as 'UUID of the league.' The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'Generate a full readiness report for a league' and lists specific outputs such as composite score, per-dimension breakdown, ASD Certificate Tier, classification, and recommendations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assess_league_readiness by emphasizing comprehensiveness.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assess_league_readiness, get_league_quarterly_report). The description implies it is for a comprehensive report, but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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