bye_outlook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important semantics: missing players in a played week are reported as UNKNOWN rather than scored as zero, preventing hidden holes. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention authentication, but the query phrasing and output-schema presence make the safe-read nature reasonably clear.

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 the first line, and the IMPORTANT note is useful. However, the description includes rationale and colorful explanation ('that is how a hole gets hidden until Sunday') that could be trimmed for an agent-facing tool definition.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, and the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and parameters. It lacks explicit authentication or when-not-to-use guidance, but for a read-oriented bye-week projection tool it is largely complete.

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. The Args section documents all three parameters meaningfully: league_id_ and roster_id_ default to SLEEPER_LEAGUE_ID and SLEEPER_ROSTER_ID, and through_week is described as the last week to project with default 17.

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 states a specific outcome: identifying upcoming weeks where the user cannot field a legal lineup, and why. It implicitly covers bye weeks by explaining that a player on bye returns no projection, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like player_outlook.

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 provides conceptual context for using the tool, such as 'absence IS the bye' and that no separate bye table is needed, which implies its purpose. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as player_outlook or roster.

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