live_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool gets live points, mentions auto-subs and bonus points, and specifies the temporal constraint (active gameweek). This provides good behavioral context beyond just the name.

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 brief (3 sentences) and well-structured with a clear purpose line, usage section, and parameter definition. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter means. No additional context is needed.

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 only parameter team_id is described with its meaning: 'FPL team ID (the number in your FPL URL).' The schema has no description, so the description adds significant value by explaining what the integer represents and how to find it.

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 'Get live points for a specific FPL team during an active gameweek.' It provides specific verb and resource, and gives examples of user queries that trigger its use. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on live gameweek data.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS WHEN' with concrete examples like 'How's my team doing?'. It also implies when not to use by stating 'Only useful during an active gameweek'. No explicit alternatives among siblings are listed, but the context is clear.

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