fpl_get_manager_by_team_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details such as showing '15 players picked, captain/vice-captain choices, formation, points scored, transfers made, and automatic substitutions.' It also explains error conditions. No contradiction 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 with sections: main purpose, functionality, args, returns, examples, and error handling. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 rich annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, usage, examples, and error cases. It is fully complete for a read-only, idempotent tool with open world semantics.

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 has descriptions for team_id, gameweek, and response_format, so schema coverage is effectively 100% (despite the context signal indicating 0%, which seems inconsistent). The description adds value by explaining defaults ('defaults to current GW') and providing examples, but the schema alone is sufficient.

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 'Get manager profile and squad information using team ID directly,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fpl_get_manager_squad by noting it has a 'name that better reflects its purpose' and that it works without league context.

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 explicitly says 'without requiring league context,' contrasting with fpl_get_manager_squad. It provides examples for different gameweeks and output formats, and mentions error handling for invalid team IDs or gameweeks not started.

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