Find bye-week conflicts on a roster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior—reporting shared bye weeks—but omits details like input validation, error handling (e.g., unknown player names), whether the result includes only conflicts or also non-conflicts, or the output format. Adequate for a simple read-only tool, but not richly transparent.

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 precisely states the function, and the second adds a usage scenario. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does and when to use it. The only minor gap is the absent description of the return value, but given the simplicity and the phrase 'report,' an agent can reasonably infer a list of bye weeks with associated players.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter ('Player names, two or more'), so the description adds no further meaning beyond that. The tool description does not elaborate on formatting, ordering, or constraints beyond 'list of players,' matching the baseline expectation.

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 ('report') and a precise resource ('which bye weeks two or more of them share'), clearly distinguishing it from all siblings which focus on individual players, comparisons, rankings, or matchups. The title reinforces the purpose without introducing ambiguity.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this for roster planning and draft questions about stacking byes.' It provides a clear context but does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it, though the unique purpose makes conflict with siblings unlikely.

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