recommend_season_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only describes the recommendation action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires any permissions, or how results are delivered, leaving safety and side-effect profile undefined.

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, compact sentence with no repetitive or extraneous content. It is efficiently structured with the verb and object first.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present), the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of optional parameters, the nature of the output beyond a recommendation, and any context about season strategy decisions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 schema has three parameters (week, league_id, roster_id) with 0% coverage in the description. The description's references to 'record, points rank, and roster strength' vaguely imply the data used but do not explain how these map to the parameters or why week is required.

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 function—recommending a risk posture—and specifies the data sources ('record, points rank, and current weekly roster strength'). While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like recommend_draft_pick, the season strategy focus provides some distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks contextual clues such as prerequisites, decision points, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.

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