Strength of schedule by team and position

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It proactively discloses the measurement methodology (average fantasy points allowed), the time periods covered (full season plus playoff weeks), and the ranking behavior when only a position is given. This explains the tool's behavior clearly, though it does not state whether it is read-only or error conditions, which would push it to a 5.

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 three sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives concise usage instructions, then lists applicable use cases. Each sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the metric, time ranges, input variations, and typical use cases. It leaves the exact return format (e.g., a number vs. a list) implicit, but the phrase 'rank all 32 teams' strongly implies a list output when applicable, making this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the interaction between parameters: team or player are alternatives, and a position alone ranks all teams. It also implies inference behavior (player resolves team and position), which is not fully specified in the schema. This added clarity justifies a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool measures schedule difficulty for a fantasy position, including full season and playoff weeks (14-17), based on opponent average fantasy points allowed. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rankings (player rankings) and get_positional_scarcity (scarcity) by focusing on schedule strength. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'strength of schedule' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage scenarios: 'rest-of-season stash, trade deadline, and playoff planning questions,' which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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