Account and league rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: fetches current state and changes nothing.' It adds some context beyond the annotation by explaining how the returned data constrains other moves, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or potential staleness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately gives actionable guidance ('Start here') and the key fields an agent needs to interpret. The read-only note is short and reinforces safety. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the returned data categories, how they relate to legal moves, and the read-only nature. The mention of specific rule details like `second_highest_offers` gives meaningful context without needing to enumerate the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters to document, the description's lack of parameter-specific detail is appropriate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the manager's current budget, squad totals and formation, plus the league rules that decide which moves are legal.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like get_squad and get_player by enumerating the distinct data it returns.

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 explicitly says 'Start here' and explains why: `budget` bounds any bid, `tactic` and `team_count_linedup` describe the current lineup, and the rules cover bidding mechanics, sale limits, and bans. This gives clear context for when to call this tool first, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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