search_squad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that search is limited to the 23 owned players, defines position values, and explains the non-market scope. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or absence of side effects, this is implied by the filter/search nature. It also references 'step 4' without elaboration, which is a minor gap.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds critical scope differentiation without any waste. Every clause contributes value, making it highly readable and efficient.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, so the description needs to provide substantial context. It covers the scope and the position enum, but leaves three parameters unexplained and references an undefined 'step 4' in the workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing parameter semantics creates a noticeable gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only documents the `position` parameter with allowed values (GK, DEF, MID, FWD). The other three parameters (`club`, `max_value`, `min_points`) are left completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their semantics and units unclear.

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 opens with 'Filter the squad,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the scope by stating it searches the 23 owned players and explicitly contrasts this with the transfer market, thereby distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_market.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for searching the owned squad, not the transfer market, and even notes that the market requires the live source added in step 4. This provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, along with context for why the transfer market is excluded.

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