recommend_players

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the ranking criteria but does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects. However, the described action (ranking) inherently suggests a query operation, so it is minimally transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core functionality without superfluous details. Every word adds value, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does and the ranking factors but does not describe the return format, ordering, or potential limitations. The lack of output schema increases the need for behavioral context, which the description partially fulfills.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (horizon, max_cost, position). The tool description adds context about the ranking blend but does not clarify the 'limit' parameter, which is described only in schema constraints. Overall, the description adds some meaning beyond the schema but not significantly for all parameters.

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's purpose: 'Rank available players by a blend of form, value, and upcoming fixture difficulty.' It specifies a verb (rank), a resource (available players), and ranking criteria, making it easy to understand. The tool is distinct from its siblings (current_gameweek, my_squad, make_transfer) which serve different purposes.

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?

While the description implies the tool is for getting player recommendations, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools or when not to use it. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.

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