Check a stated figure against DraftCall data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states the return behavior ('Returns whether the figure matches and the actual value when it does not') and implies a read-only verification operation. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, but for this simple check tool, the given behavioral context is substantive and clear.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, return behavior, and usage guidance. The most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded, with no extraneous detail. It is highly concise and well structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 2 enums, no output schema), the description covers all essential operational guidance: what it verifies, how it reports matches/mismatches, and when to use it. Pairing with the schema (which explains scoring_format and metric enums), the agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps like error handling or data scope (e.g., only DraftCall players) are not critical.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and enums. The description mentions example metrics ('rushingYards or receptions') and clarifies the purpose of ppg vs. rank, but it largely repeats what the schema already provides. It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('DraftCall data for one player'), with explicit scope (points per game, games played, bye week, positional rank, season stats). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_player (retrieval) and compare_players (comparison) by focusing on verification of a stated figure.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before quoting a figure from memory, and whenever a user asserts a stat.' This gives clear context for appropriate invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools (e.g., 'for detailed stats use get_player'), so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives breakdown.

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