find_trade_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a behavioral trait ('without inventing acceptance odds'), which is valuable context about what the tool will not do. However, it does not mention side effects, data requirements, or limitations beyond that single constraint.

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, well-structured sentence with no waste. It front-loads the purpose and includes a negative constraint, making it concise and scannable.

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?

Despite having an output schema and no required parameters, the description is thin for a tool that likely depends on league context and horizon. It does not explain how to set up inputs, when data is ready, or what 'plausible' means. More guidance is needed for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides no explanation of the 4 parameters (limit, horizon, league_id, roster_id). Horizon is particularly ambiguous and would need clarification. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Find plausible one-for-one roster-fit trades') and includes a key differentiator ('without inventing acceptance odds'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_trade_offer that record trades rather than find them.

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 implies usage (to find trade opportunities) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many siblings. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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