Get player projections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: results are model output with projected numbers only, requires a Starter plan, and includes the exact JSON return shape. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args, then Returns. The return JSON is included because no output schema exists, making it necessary rather than redundant. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its prerequisites, and the full return structure. It does not explain every data field (e.g., 'line', 'direction'), but the context is sufficient for a read-only projection tool.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (league, date) with descriptions, enum, and pattern. The description repeats the args but adds no extra semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns raw player stat projections (KingsPlaybook's model output) for a given league and date. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'projected number only' and the league+date scope, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies a prerequisite (Starter plan or higher) and indicates the tool is used for per-league, per-date projections. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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