get_start_sit_recommendation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'public' and 'Scout' as source context, but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or how missing optional parameters are handled.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 presence of an output schema, read-only annotations, and self-explanatory parameter names, the description is minimally viable. It still lacks usage context and explicit parameter semantics, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation in ambiguous situations.

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 needed to explain what player_a, player_b, week, and season mean. It does not mention any of them; 'start/sit comparison' only weakly implies the two players involved.

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 names a specific resource ('a public Scout start/sit comparison') and a clear action ('Return'), which makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like get_game_scores or get_player_grade. It is clear, though it does not explicitly say that the comparison is between player_a and player_b.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer contexts such as comparing two players for a given week.

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