Question playbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a recommended sequence, but it does not specify the output format or clarify whether the sequence is just tool names without executing them. This is modest added context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's function and examples; the second gives the exact trigger condition for using it.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does and when to call it. It lists broad categories but stops short of describing the exact format of the returned sequence, which would have been helpful given there is no output schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the question types that affect the recommended sequence, even though it doesn't need to document any parameter syntax.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recommended tool sequence') and grounds it with six concrete fantasy question categories. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling data-fetching tools by focusing on tool sequencing rather than returning league 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 to call this tool when unsure which tools to combine, giving a clear usage context. It doesn't provide exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are naturally implied alternatives to use directly when the agent already knows the right tool.

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