fpl_manager_hub

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses that it auto-detects bank balance, free transfers, chips, and squad, and runs all analyses in parallel. It explains the purpose of the 'gameweeks_ahead' parameter. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only FPL tool, this is sufficient.

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 efficient: front-loaded with key emojis and bold text, uses two short paragraphs, and includes arg details. Minor redundancy with ALL CAPS but overall well-structured.

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 as a hub that runs multiple analyses, the description provides adequate context: what it does, when to use it, and parameter details. It does not specify output format, but the scope is clear for a starting point tool.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to obtain the team_id from the FPL URL and defines the range for gameweeks_ahead (1-10). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 'Complete FPL intelligence report for a manager's team' and distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it 'THE BEST STARTING POINT' and listing the analyses it runs in parallel (captain pick, transfers, etc.), which are sibling tool names.

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?

It explicitly advises to 'USE THIS FIRST when the user provides their team ID or asks for a full analysis', giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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