rankings

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 what the ranking is based on (G-score, non-punted categories), but says nothing about scope limits, pagination, or how the ranking behaves with the available_only/punts inputs.

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 clauses with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The trailing 'position:' fragment is terse but does add the enum values, so it earns its place.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it neither explains the un-documented parameters nor clarifies what the returned rankings look like or how punts interact with them.

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 carries the full burden for four parameters. It only explains the position parameter (listing the PG/SG/G/SF/PF/F/C values); top, punts, and available_only are left completely 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 resource (player rankings) and the ranking basis (G-score over non-punted categories), which is more informative than a bare title. It is distinguishable from siblings like player_card or draft_board, though it does not explicitly name what it is not.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as punt_scenarios, projection_calibration, or player_card, and no stated prerequisites or context. The only hint of usage is the mention of non-punted categories, which implies a punting-aware fantasy context but is not spelled out.

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