player_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing: not what 'your signal' is, where it comes from, how fresh it is, or what auth/setup it requires (the sibling list includes auth_status and setup_token, suggesting auth matters). Only the hint of a comparison against Sleeper's view adds any context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it is front-loaded with an opaque phrase ('your signal') rather than the action, so brevity comes at the cost of intelligibility.

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 presence of an output schema excuses the description from explaining return values, but given a zero-annotation, zero-schema-description tool in a domain full of overlapping siblings (signal_divergence, player_outlook, trending), the description is too thin to let an agent select and invoke it confidently.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate – and it does not mention 'player_name' at all, merely 'one player'. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description adds no semantics such as accepted name formats or ambiguity handling.

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 is essentially a marketing tagline: 'What your signal says about one player, next to Sleeper's own view.' There is no verb (get/show/compare) and no statement of what is actually returned. It hints at a domain (comparing a personal signal against Sleeper's evaluation) but an agent cannot tell what the tool does or how it differs from the sibling 'signal_divergence'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling 'signal_divergence' is plausibly related, yet the description offers no condition for choosing one over the other. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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