rank_waiver_candidates

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful write behavior ('appends calculation evidence') and clear non-behaviors ('does not estimate winning bids, does not submit claims'). It also discloses statuses (ok, incomplete, blocked). Minor gap: it does not explain what side effect appending evidence has on subsequent calls, but the disclosure is otherwise strong.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisites, outputs, statuses, exclusions, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, though the multi-sentence structure is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 complex tool with a rich output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it needs, what it returns, status semantics, caveats, and when to use sibling tools. The agent can confidently decide whether to call it and how to interpret its results.

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 input schema already covers the single 'limit' parameter completely (type, default, description), so there is little for the description to add. The tool description reinforces that results are 'alternative single-player acquisitions' which clarifies what the limit applies to, but this is only incremental.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank alternative single-player acquisitions using the saved weekly snapshot and user limits.' It clearly scopes the tool to ranking/waiver suggestions and distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings by noting it does not submit claims and directing live proposals to espn_prepare_season_action.

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?

Explicitly lists required inputs ('current season snapshot, verified locks, weekly projections, known budget and pending commitments'), output expectations, and error states ('incomplete for missing inputs'). It also tells the agent exactly when to prefer alternatives: 'Use prepare_action only for synthetic acquisitions that pass action checks' and espn_prepare_season_action for live ESPN acquisition.

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