is_hit_worth_it

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Mentions projecting points over N gameweeks with factors like form, fixtures, home/away, playing chance, and default 5 gameweeks. Does not disclose limitations or edge cases (e.g., what if player is not owned, or if IDs are invalid).

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter explanation. No unnecessary sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, but description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a recommendation string or numeric value). Adequately distinguishes from siblings and explains inputs, but missing output info leaves agent unclear on expected result.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains each parameter: player_out_id and player_in_id as FPL element IDs, gameweeks_ahead with range and default. Adds meaning beyond schema's integer type and title.

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?

Clearly states it analyzes whether a -4 point hit for a transfer is worth it, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like transfer_suggestions and player_comparison.

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 says 'USE THIS WHEN' with example queries, and advises using player_comparison first to find IDs. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions.

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