fpl_forecast_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does frame the tool as a non-mutating inspection operation ('Return', 'inspect'). However, it does not disclose fetch/caching behavior implied by parameters like fetch_official and auto_official_signals, nor whether signals are computed on demand.

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 description is two purposeful sentences: the first states the return value and content, the second states the intended usage. It is front-loaded with the core operation and contains no filler.

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 tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the high-level purpose. An agent would still be unable to determine how to set config, signals, bootstrap_path, fetch_official, or auto_official_signals, or what the returned signal table's shape is.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies current_squad and buyable_players ('supplied squad and buyable pool'). Parameters such as config, signals, bootstrap_path, fetch_official, auto_official_signals, and limit receive no semantic explanation in the description.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('point-in-time signal table for the supplied squad and buyable pool'), and enumerates the signal content. The closing phrase 'before asking for a decision' differentiates it from decision-oriented siblings like fpl_recommend_moves and fpl_score_moves.

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?

'Use it to inspect the underlying inputs before asking for a decision' provides clear situational guidance and implies it should precede decision tools rather than replace them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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