playoff_outlook

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 by structured data. The description adds useful output context (including the current trade playoff weight) beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss limits, ordering, or how 'top' caps results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core payoff, telegraphic and dense with no filler. The scope line and trade-weight note are compact add-ons. Slightly staccato but efficient.

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 does the right thing by summarizing the returned data (playoff weeks, team games, player value, trade weight). It omits what 'top' controls and any sense of result size or ordering, leaving a gap for a parametrized read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It helpfully enumerates the valid scope values (my_roster, free_agents, league), which the schema does not. But the 'top' parameter (default 25) is never explained, 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 resource and enumerates its contents precisely: playoff weeks, NBA team games per playoff week (best/worst), players' playoff games and value, plus the trade playoff weight. An agent can tell it retrieves a fantasy-playoff projection view rather than raw schedules. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like schedule or my_roster.

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?

Listing 'scope: my_roster | free_agents | league' implies the tool is used across those vantage points, giving implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., vs schedule or my_roster) to route the agent.

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