analyze_waiver_window

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Evaluate' implies a read-only analysis operation, providing some transparency, but it does not disclose behavior such as whether it uses synced data, how optional filters like league_id/roster_id affect results, or whether any state changes occur. The analysis nature is inferable but not fully elaborated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and subject. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is minimal for a 4-parameter tool. It lacks any guidance on how to use the parameters, what 'current waivers' means in practice, or how this tool fits into a larger workflow. The high-level purpose is clear, but important operational context is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (week, limit, league_id, roster_id). There is no explanation of the required week, the default limit, or how the optional filter parameters scope the analysis. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 uses a specific verb 'Evaluate' with a clear resource 'current waivers' and specifies three analysis aspects (add/drop pairs, FAAB ranges, expected competition). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recommend_draft_pick or optimize_lineup by focusing specifically on waiver analysis.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'current waivers' implies context, but it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over other analysis/recommendation tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like having synced league data or a specific week.

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