draft_board

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, closed-world), but the description adds a genuinely useful dynamic trait not captured anywhere else: drafted players are hidden while a draft is in progress. That state-dependent filtering is real behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the core value proposition is front-loaded. The phrasing is somewhat telegraphic/cryptic ('punt-aware G-score value'), but nothing is wasted.

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 the returned fields, which is a real plus. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing parameter documentation leaves a clear gap.

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% for all three parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never explains what 'top' limits, what format 'punts' or 'position' take, or their defaults. Only a loose thematic link ('punt-aware', 'positions') exists.

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?

Names the resource (draft board) and enumerates the specific outputs it returns (G-score value, tier, positions, ESPN ADP, value vs ADP), so an agent knows exactly what data to expect. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like draft_recommend or draft_mock.

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 on when to call this versus draft_recommend, rankings, or free_agents, and no explanation of how the 'top', 'punts', or 'position' arguments should be chosen. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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