get_manager_profile

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 adds value by stating the output is 'uncertainty-labeled' and sourced from 'retained history', and 'Return' implies read-only. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or how the uncertainty labels are generated.

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 communicates the key concept without redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only getter.

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, the description fails to explain how the two optional parameters identify a specific manager. Without parameter guidance, the agent cannot confidently construct a valid request, and the description lacks necessary invocation context.

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 league_id or roster_id at all. The agent cannot infer how to populate these parameters or whether they are required contextually, making invocation ambiguous.

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 'Return' with a clear resource 'manager behavior', and adds distinctive modifiers 'descriptive, uncertainty-labeled' and source 'retained history'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_roster_state or get_player_context, which target different data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Among over 30 sibling tools, the agent receives no contextual hints for selecting this specific tool.

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