draft_recommend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating what the advice contains (build-aware score, ADP availability, position needs, category profile), which substitutes for a missing output schema, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or how scores are computed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the key qualifier 'Live draft advice', followed by an efficient comma-delimited inventory of what it returns. No filler, though the list runs slightly long without punctuation hierarchy.

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 no output schema, the enumeration of returned components is genuinely helpful, but the only input parameter is left unexplained and there is no indication of prerequisites such as an active draft or synced league data.

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 single parameter 'top' has 0% schema description coverage and a bare default of 8, and the description never mentions it or says how many picks are returned. With one undocumented param the description should have compensated, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb-less but concrete purpose: live draft advice, enumerated as best picks by build-aware score, ADP availability, position needs, next-pick projections, and category profile. This distinguishes it from siblings like draft_board (static board data) and draft_pick (recording a pick), though it never names those alternatives.

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 'Live draft advice' implies usage during an active draft, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no comparison to draft_board, draft_mock, or draft_start. The agent must infer that this is the recommendation call rather than a data-fetch call.

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