buy_sell

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful substance about the computation itself (freshly 'computed now', reason categories such as minutes/usage/hot-cold shooting/teammate out/small sample, plus confidence and action hint), but says nothing about freshness guarantees, caching, or result limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a single long sentence with nested parentheticals that mixes output fields, computation method, and parameter values. It is information-dense but not cleanly structured for scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back: reasons versus preseason expectation, confidence, owner, and an action hint. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, with the only real gap being the undocumented 'top' parameter.

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 must carry the load. It does define the accepted 'scope' values (all | mine | others | fa), which is genuinely additive, but the 'top' parameter and its default of 15 are never explained (presumably list length), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 output artifact (buy-low / sell-high lists) and spells out the exact computation basis: season-to-date value vs rest-of-season projection in G points per game. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never differentiates itself from adjacent siblings like find_trades or rankings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus find_trades, rankings, or evaluate_trade, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'scope: all | mine | others | fa' fragment is parameter documentation, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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