Fantasy football primer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds topical scope but does not disclose behavioral details such as response format, length, or whether the explanation is tailored to the topic parameter. This is acceptable for an informational tool but not exemplary.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and scope, while the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: one optional parameter, a fully described enum, and read-only annotations. The description covers what the tool does, what topics it addresses, and when to invoke it, so an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single optional topic parameter is fully documented with an enum and clear descriptions, including the default behavior. The description's topic list roughly mirrors the enum, so it adds no meaningful meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get background on how fantasy football works') and enumerates concrete subtopics, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling data-retrieval tools by framing itself as a primer for jargon and unfamiliar formats.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when a question uses fantasy jargon you are not confident about, or before giving advice in an unfamiliar league format.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route an agent effectively.

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