recommend_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it suggests transfer targets and describes the input format, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any behavior beyond the core action.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter example. Every part earns its place, and there is 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?

The tool has a simple interface with one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details such as assumptions about player names, error handling for invalid entries, or how suggestions are generated, leaving gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema provides only the parameter type (string) and title, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates effectively by explaining that team_json is a JSON array of player names and providing a concrete example, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it suggests transfer targets for an FPL team, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (recommend_captain, find_differentials) by the action and goal, though no explicit comparison is made.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_captain or find_differentials. The context is only implied by the name and purpose, leaving the agent without explicit usage criteria.

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