fpl_get_manager_gameweek_team

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details error handling (manager not found, ambiguous names, API failures) and specifies the return format (complete team sheet with statistics). Annotations already indicate this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), but the description enriches with operational details.

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 for Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. The first sentence states the purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, every section adds useful information. It could be slightly more concise but is not overly verbose.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: input parameters, return value description, usage examples, and error scenarios. The output schema exists to provide formal structure, so the description need not detail every field, but it gives a clear overview of what the tool returns.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (manager_name, league_id, gameweek). The tool description repeats this information in an 'Args' block and adds concrete examples showing parameter values, which enhances understanding. Given high schema coverage, the description adds moderate value via examples.

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: 'Get a manager's team selection for a specific gameweek.' It specifies what the output includes (15 players, captain, vice-captain, formation, points, transfers, auto-subs) and distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on a single manager's gameweek team sheet.

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 how to use the tool: find a manager by name or team name within a specific league. It provides examples and prerequisites (league_id, manager_name, gameweek). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like fpl_get_manager_squad, but the context is clear enough.

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