playoff_bracket

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely important behavioral caveat: seeds are provisional until the regular season ends, Sleeper re-seeds as standings move, and 'the output says which of the two it is looking at.' It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but the provisional-seed disclosure is the key behavioral trait an agent needs.

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 with the core identity, then the sibling routing, then the provisional-seed caveat, then args. Prose is a touch chatty but every sentence earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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 not be explained, and the description fills the remaining gaps: what the tool is, when it supersedes playoff_odds, the provisional-seed risk, and all three args. Nothing an agent needs to 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 compensate — and it does, documenting all three params: consolation as the losers' bracket vs championship, previous as the prior season, and league_id_ as an override of the configured league. It adds clear meaning beyond the bare 'boolean'/'string' types in the schema.

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 — 'who plays whom, and who has won' — and immediately frames it against the sibling playoff_odds as 'the real thing rather than a simulation.' An agent can distinguish it from playoff_odds without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: from the first playoff week it 'replaces playoff_odds entirely,' with the reasoning that once the field is set there is nothing left to estimate. The alternative and the switching condition are both named.

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