fpl_recommend_moves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the default 'frozen champion' strategy, that default champion holds are legal free transfers, and that hybrid chip use only occurs when model-backed. However, terms like 'frozen champion strategy' and 'hybrid challengers' are domain jargon and are not explained.

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?

Three dense sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds information, though some phrasing is jargon-heavy and slightly clunky. Overall it is appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 description covers the main inputs and the default behavior, but the required config parameter is never explained and there is no output schema to clarify the return structure. Given 14 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 29%, but the description adds meaning for several key parameters: full 15-player current squad, buyable players, point-in-time signals or auto_official_signals, unused chips, and optional mini-league context. It does not clarify the required config object, limit, model paths, or bootstrap paths, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 ('Return legal FPL transfer moves for the current gameweek') and identifies its core resource and default strategy. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool fpl_strategy_info, but the recommend/info distinction is clear from the phrasing.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus fpl_strategy_info or any other alternative. It mentions default vs hybrid strategies, which is parameter-level guidance, but not tool-selection guidance.

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