league_profile

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. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral context: it does not say whether the result is simulated/cached, what time basis 'typical-week' uses, or whether the computation is expensive.

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 parenthetical sentence that front-loads the return value and then the use case. No filler, though the parenthetical slightly buries the strategic framing that would help routing.

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 and no annotation detail beyond safety, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back. It states the output concept well but leaves the sole parameter and any behavioral traits (cost, caching, freshness) unexplained.

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?

There is one parameter, n, with default 4000 and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions n or explains that it likely controls simulation sample size, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 concrete output — every team's typical-week win rate per category versus the league — which is a specific computed resource rather than a tautology. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like league_overview or standings, though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.

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?

It gestures at usage by framing the output as the 'basis for punt/target strategy and trade partner fit,' which implicitly points toward punt_scenarios and evaluate_trade/find_trades. However, it never states when to call this tool instead of those siblings, nor any prerequisite or ordering.

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