captain_pick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists scoring factors (xG/90, xA/90, etc.) and mentions reasoning. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or any limitations like data freshness or API dependencies.

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 7 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage examples. It is efficient but includes a docstring-style Args section that could be integrated. Still, it avoids unnecessary details.

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 simplicity (1 non-required parameter, no output schema), the description provides essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how scoring works. It could mention that results are read-only, but that is implied.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: 'Gameweek number (1-38). Defaults to next gameweek if not specified.' This clarifies the range and default behavior beyond the schema's type and nullability.

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 purpose: 'Get top 5 captain recommendations for a given FPL gameweek.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top 5 captain recommendations') and distinguishes from sibling tools like squad_scout and transfer_suggestions by focusing on captaincy.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'USE THIS WHEN...' with example queries like 'Who should I captain?' and 'Best captain this week?' It covers the typical use cases but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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