chip_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It details auto-detection of available chips, handling of mid-season resets, and scanning the next 10 gameweeks for scoring—transparency beyond a basic 'recommend' statement.

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 extremely concise: three sentences plus example usage. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately provides usage guidance and parameter info without any redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity (auto-detection, scoring over 10 weeks), the description covers the main behavioral aspects and usage context. However, it lacks details on the output format or any edge cases, which would be beneficial but not critical.

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 only defines team_id as an integer with no description. The tool description adds semantic value by explaining 'team_id: FPL team ID (the number in your FPL URL),' which clarifies how to obtain and use the parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Recommend when to use each remaining FPL chip for maximum impact,' providing a clear verb+resource purpose. This tool is distinct from siblings like captain_pick or fixture_outlook, as no other tool covers chip strategy.

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 includes a 'USE THIS WHEN' section with example user queries, making the usage context very clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, which prevents a top score.

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