Power rankings

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that results are computed, blend scoring and strength of schedule, and offer a better quality estimate than raw record; it does not describe the return payload shape, but that is not safety-critical for this read-only lookup.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, then adds the formula distinction and the companion use case, and every sentence contributes value.

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 simple, fully optional-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the operation, the interpretation of the result, and the companion tool. It omits a detailed return-shape description, but no output schema exists and the tool name plus first sentence convey the expected result well enough.

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%, so week, year, and leagueId are all individually documented. The description adds only a small hint that ranking is 'through a given week,' while leaving the detailed optional/omit semantics to the schema; the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 computed power rankings') and clarifies that the concept blends scoring and opponent strength, distinguishing it from raw record standings. It even names the related sibling get_standings, so an agent can identify what this tool uniquely provides.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: compute rankings through a week and pair with get_standings to detect teams overperforming their record. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or enumerate alternatives, but the stated companion relationship is enough to guide selection among the listed siblings.

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