playoff_projection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Recompute' implies some computation or possible state update, but the description never says whether this mutates stored data, requires permissions, or is a safe read-only projection. An agent cannot tell if invoking this tool has side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and rule, the second states the use case. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the source data, the exact seed-matching rule, and the intended use case—enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is side-effect clarity, already reflected in behavioral transparency.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly suggests there is nothing for the caller to configure.

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 action ('Recompute'), a resource ('playoff seeds from the live standings'), and a precise rule ('1v5/2v6/3v7/4v8'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic siblings like standings and playoff_bracket.

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 phrase 'Useful for week-to-week what-ifs' gives a clear intended scenario for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as playoff_bracket or likely_opponents, so it falls just short of a 5.

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