get_transfer_fit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the score range (0-100), the three blended components (tactical, financial, strategic), the per-signal breakdown, and the API key requirement. This gives a clear behavioral picture beyond the structured fields.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary output, enumerates the fit components, notes the per-signal breakdown, and states the access requirement. Every clause adds value without redundancy.

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 is a composite scoring function with an output schema present, so the return format is covered by the schema. The description adds the score range, component definitions, and key-tier requirement. It does not explain error cases or edge conditions, but for selecting and invoking the tool, the essentials are present.

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 mentions 'player → club move' but never explicitly explains the parameters 'player_id' or 'target_club_id', their source, or constraints. The prose only implies a relationship between IDs, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and titles.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('transfer-fit score'), and defines the scope as a player-to-club move with three named fit components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_value or get_player_opportunities, which address different analyses.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a 0-100 transfer-fit score for a specific player-club pair is needed, and explicitly notes the prerequisite 'Ultra-tier key or higher'. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings.

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