Rank / search players

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, matching the read nature of rankings. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it mentions pagination behavior (max 25 players, paging with start) and the scope of the ranking window via sortType. There is no contradiction. The description adds value but does not fully disclose all behaviors (e.g., exact return format).

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then explain key parameters and a usage hint. There is no superfluous text; every sentence serves a purpose. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, pagination, and a specific use case. It does not detail the return structure, but without an output schema, that is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds some context (e.g., 'sort is a stat id or one of AR, OR, PTS') but mostly repeats schema information. It does provide a usage tip for paging, but overall the value added over schema is marginal, thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ranks league players by a sort key, and includes both free agents. It explicitly explains the sort parameter (stat id or AR/OR/PTS) and mentions a specific use case (finding waiver/free-agent targets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_player_stats or get_player_stats, which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to find waiver/free-agent targets'), implying a specific scenario. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of ranking/searching vs. analyzing stats is implied by the sibling tool names. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear context with no exclusions.

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