player_comparison

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It mentions fuzzy matching and lists output metrics, but does not disclose error handling for invalid names, rate limits, or side effects. Safe operation is implied but not explicit.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes usage, behavioral notes, and parameter details in a single well-structured paragraph with no waste.

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?

For a comparison tool with fuzzy matching and multiple outputs, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output list without an output schema. It is mostly complete, though could mention error cases for invalid inputs.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by detailing player_names as a list of 2-4 names with fuzzy matching, and gameweeks_ahead as fixture count (1-10, default 5), significantly adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 it compares 2-4 FPL players head-to-head across key metrics, using specific verbs like 'Compare' and listing metrics. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on head-to-head comparison versus other tools like captain_pick or differential_finder.

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 provides usage triggers with examples like 'Salah vs Palmer?' and 'Which midfielder should I pick?', and mentions fuzzy matching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings.

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