find_differentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the search intent but does not disclose output format, sorting, or whether it is a read-only operation. It does not clarify what 'low-ownership' means or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a brief Args block. There is no redundant information, and the structure helps the agent quickly understand the tool and its parameter. Every sentence 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?

The tool has a single parameter, which is well explained. An output schema exists (although not shown), so return-value details are not required in the description. The description provides sufficient context for the agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on the nature of 'low-ownership'.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema). The description compensates fully by explaining the unit (£m) and inclusivity ('or under') with an example (7.0 for players £7.0m or under). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find low-ownership differential players under a given price.' The verb 'find' combined with the specific resource ('low-ownership differential players') and constraint ('under a given price') clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recommend_transfer and recommend_captain.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use this when looking for differentials under a price), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or compare it to the sibling tools.

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