Put a player up for sale

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

While annotations already indicate non-read-only, the description adds significant behavioral context: it mutates the team, is reversible, offers received are real, and it warns about partial failures (checking placed/rejected). This goes well beyond the annotations and gives an agent crucial operational knowledge.

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 action, uses a bold warning for critical side effects, and is succinct. Every sentence adds value—confirmation, parameter sourcing, reversibility, and result-checking—without fluff.

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?

It covers the essential workflow: what the tool does, prerequisites (own player, confirmation), input sourcing, side effects, reversibility, and how to interpret results via placed/rejected fields. Combined with the output schema, this is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining player_id as one of the manager's own players (sourced from get_squad) and price as the asking price with guidance to compare against get_player's suggested value. This provides meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't specify constraints like positive values (implied by integer type).

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 action ('Put one of the manager's own players up for sale') with a clear resource (player) and price parameter. It is distinct from siblings like unlist_player_from_market or change_listing_price, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly instructs to confirm the player and price with the user before calling, and provides source context (IDs from get_squad, suggested price from get_player). It lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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