waiver_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral context: it explains the exact computation, that players who can't crack the lineup price at zero, and that an empty list is a legitimate result rather than an error. It does not cover auth/permission requirements (auth_status, setup_token siblings exist), so it falls short of 5.

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 opening line is front-loaded with the core ranking purpose, and the Args block is tight and scannable. The intervening philosophy paragraph is slightly long but every sentence justifies the metric or its edge case.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the params and methodology are well covered. The only real gap is the absence of any permission/auth note on a league-scoped read tool, but for this complexity level it is close to 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 fully — and it does, documenting all five parameters with defaults and meaning (week 0 = current week, limit=15, position enumerated QB/RB/WR/TE/K/DEF, league_id_/roster_id_ falling back to env defaults). This adds substantial 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?

The description states a specific action (rank free agents) and a precise, differentiating metric: `best_lineup(roster + him) - best_lineup(roster)`. It explicitly contrasts itself with projection-based and generic-replacement (VORP) tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like trending or trade_targets without opening a 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?

It clearly frames when this tool is the right choice by naming what it is NOT (projection, value over replacement) and by normalizing the 'empty result' case as a valid answer. It stops short of naming specific sibling tools or explicit exclusions, but the methodological context is enough to route correctly.

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