rival_tracker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions what the tool does (compare squads, find differentials, identify weaknesses, predict transfers, suggest strategies) but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, using a clear structure with a usage guideline section and parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args:' section could be formatted more cleanly. Overall, it earns its length.

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 (multiple analysis aspects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage triggers, and parameter details. It does not describe the return format or depth of analysis, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, actionable guidance for each parameter: league_id is explained with an example URL format, and team_id is described as 'the number in your FPL URL'. This fully explains the parameters beyond the schema titles.

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 the tool's purpose: analyzing mini-league rivals and providing strategies. It uses specific verbs ('analyze', 'get strategies') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'league_analyzer' by focusing on rivals and actionable counter-strategies.

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 lists example user queries that trigger this tool, providing clear usage context. It also specifies required inputs (league_id, team_id) and explains where to find them. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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