fpl_search_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include current price, expected points, form, ownership, status, and transfer signals, and that the pool is cached. However, it does not explain the behavioral impact of non-obvious options such as fetch_official or bootstrap_path.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first identifies what the tool searches and by which criteria, and the second states the intended use and returned data. Every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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?

Adequate for a search tool with no required parameters, but there are meaningful gaps: no output schema, no annotation coverage, and undocumented semantics for bootstrap_path and fetch_official. The description tells the agent what it will get back but not all the operational details needed to invoke it in more advanced modes.

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 22%, so the description must compensate. It does map several filter dimensions to parameters (name, position, team, price, availability), but it does not clarify the meaning of fetch_official or bootstrap_path, and several parameters still lack any semantic guidance beyond defaults.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('full cached official FPL player pool'), and lists the main search dimensions. The description clearly separates this from its sibling tools, which are about recommendations, strategies, lineups, forecasts, and backtesting rather than searching players.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use this to construct or inspect buyable candidates.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the stated use case is actionable and distinct enough from the sibling tools.

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