free_agents

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no permissions, ranking methodology, or result limits beyond the 'top' parameter. The sort formulas are parameter semantics, not behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though extremely terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and four parameters, the description should do more. It omits 'punts' (presumably a punt strategy) and 'position' filtering entirely, so an agent cannot infer how to constrain the result set.

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 full load for four parameters. It explains the 'sort' values well but says nothing about 'top', 'punts', or 'position', leaving three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 resource and scope: 'Best unrostered players', which clearly identifies the free-agent ranking operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like waiver_decision or streaming_plan, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explains when each sort mode applies ('value' = rest of season, 'week' = streaming), which is genuine usage guidance for the sort parameter. However, it gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus waiver_decision or streaming_plan, leaving alt-tool selection implicit.

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