fpl_get_captain_recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe reads. The description adds value by revealing the analytical inputs (fixtures, form, home/away advantage) and the decision logic, going beyond mere safety traits. 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 concise purpose statement, followed by details, parameter explanations, return type, examples, and error handling. Each part contributes meaningfully, and the key information is front-loaded. Slightly longer than necessary due to repeated parameter descriptions, but overall 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 description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter behavior (with vs. without team_id), return format (top 3-5 recommendations with analysis), and error handling. Since an output schema exists, the return value description is sufficient. For a tool with three parameters and conditional logic, the description is fairly complete.

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 provides clear descriptions for each parameter (team_id, gameweek, response_format), so the description adds marginal value by restating them with examples. The baseline is 3 given high schema coverage; the examples slightly improve clarity but do not introduce new semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'captaincy recommendations' for the upcoming gameweek. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like fpl_analyze_rival or fpl_analyze_team_fixtures by focusing exclusively on captain picks.

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 explains when to provide a team_id for personal recommendations versus when to use it for general picks. It includes examples for both cases and mentions error handling for invalid gameweek or team ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast with alternatives.

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