get_dream_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add some behavioral context: it explains the return format (player names, teams, positions, points) and the default of using the current gameweek. However, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether the data is read-only, though 'Get' implies that.

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: a single clear purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and default behavior, which is sufficient for basic usage. It lacks details on error handling or authentication, but the simple nature of the tool limits the gap.

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 schema provides no descriptions for gameweek_id, so the description's 'Gameweek to fetch (defaults to the current gameweek)' adds clear meaning. It explains the parameter's purpose and its default behavior, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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's function: fetching the official dream team (highest-scoring XI) for a gameweek. It uses a specific verb+resource and the 'highest-scoring XI' clarification distinguishes it from sibling user-team tools like get_my_current_team.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention which scenarios call for the official dream team compared to user-specific team retrieval, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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