fpl_score_moves

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only ranking tool (no side effects mentioned) and clarifies it uses transparent weights. However, it does not disclose the output format, pagination behavior, or what happens on invalid inputs (e.g., missing required params). While not misleading, it leaves notable gaps.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the key contrast with fpl_recommend_moves plus a list of relevant factors. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description covers only purpose and a high-level comparison. It does not explain required parameters (gameweek, current_squad), how to use config, signals, weight_overrides, limit, fetch_official, or auto_official_signals, nor what the ranking output looks like. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity.

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 10% (only buyable_players has a description). The description mentions several evaluation factors (short/long points, price economics, ownership leverage, etc.) that likely correspond to config or weight_overrides, but it does not explain how to structure these parameters or what values are expected. It provides some high-level semantic context but fails to compensate for the low schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Rank legal one-transfer moves under explicit transparent weights.' It uses a specific verb (rank) and a distinct resource (one-transfer moves), and explicitly differentiates from sibling fpl_recommend_moves by saying it is for tuning/explanation rather than final action. This leaves no ambiguity about its role.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use fpl_recommend_moves for the final action including chips and the learned policy.' It also lists the factors it evaluates (short/long points, price economics, etc.), giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. No inference is required.

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