punt_scenarios

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the simulation's internal behavior (builds propose FA swaps in valuation order, only helpful swaps are kept) and enumerates returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 purpose and packed with signal, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on that chains process, return values, and side outputs together. It is efficiently sized overall with no filler.

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 complex read-only simulation with no output schema and no annotation detail about results, the description adequately covers process, outputs, and timing. The only real gap is that two of the three input parameters are left 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It decodes the 'scenarios' format explicitly ('FT%;3PM,FT%'), which is genuinely helpful, but 'top' and 'fa_moves' are never explained, leaving two of three 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare punt builds') and scopes it tightly ('for MY roster'), with enough detail about the simulation pipeline that the agent knows exactly what analysis is produced. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it lands just 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?

'Run before any strategy proposal' gives an explicit sequencing rule, and the scenarios note implies context for testing specific builds. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. evaluate_add_drop, simulate_matchup) to prefer for adjacent questions.

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