playoff_odds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the simulation method, the tie-breaking rule (points for, Sleeper default), and that output reports its own confidence rather than a uniformly solid number. It stops short of stating read-only status or cost/runtime.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with methodology and caveats following in an organized way. The confidence paragraph is mildly long-winded but each sentence adds real context.

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 covers method, parameters, tie-break behavior, and confidence signaling. The main omission is any routing guidance relative to sibling odds/standings tools.

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: trials is explained with its default effect on error margin, and league_id_ is described as overriding the configured league. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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 and resource: computing playoff probability for every team via season simulation. An agent can distinguish it from bracket-style siblings by the simulation framing, though it never names a sibling it is not.

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?

It implies when it applies (a full-season playoff outlook rather than a single matchup), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among matchup_odds, playoff_bracket, or standings.

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