breakouts

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

No annotations, so the description carries the load — and it does well: it discloses the ranking methodology (change in target/carry share), the free-agent roster filter, and the min_snap_share rationale (below it, a spike is garbage time). It does not discuss permissions or auth, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a tightly reasoned justification, then an Args block. The comparative paragraph is dense but every clause conveys actionable information rather than padding.

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 six-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers scope (free agents), method (share change), all parameters with defaults, and the caveat that drives result quality. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry all six parameters — and it documents every one, including position options, weeks semantics ('completed weeks'), defaults, season format, and league override. The min_snap_share explanation adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 0.25 default.

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+resource with scope: free agents in the league ranked by the change in their share of team targets and carries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling waiver_targets by naming what that tool does and why this one differs.

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?

Explicitly says when this tool matters versus waiver_targets: waiver_targets prices by projection, projections lag usage by a week, so this tool is the earlier signal. That is a concrete when-to-use and when-the-alternative-fails rule, not implied guidance.

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