get_blank_gameweeks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation and describes the return value (blank gameweeks and affected teams), but does not disclose details such as whether authentication is needed, potential errors, or any side effects. This is acceptable for a simple informational tool but not rich.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by an Args/Returns docstring. Every sentence adds value, and the tool name and description align without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what input it takes, and what it returns. It lacks specific output format details, but that is not critical given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for comparison.

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?

The single parameter num_gameweeks is clearly described in the description as 'Number of upcoming gameweeks to check (default: 5)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explicitly defining the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves information about upcoming blank gameweeks where teams don't have fixtures, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_double_gameweeks. The verb 'get' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for blank gameweek information, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_double_gameweeks or how it fits into a workflow. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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