get_manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential error conditions, or whether information is limited to the authenticated manager or can be looked up for any team.

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 well-structured with a summary, Args, and Returns sections, and it's appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool. It could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the parameter explanation into prose, but it's still effective.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it lists categories like history, name, team details, and leagues, which is helpful but lacks specifics about data structure. It also omits any mention of authentication needs or error handling, which is relevant given the sibling authentication tools, making the description incomplete.

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's parameter has no description, but the tool's Args section explains that team_id is the 'FPL team ID to look up,' adding essential semantic meaning beyond the raw integer type. This adequately compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 detailed FPL manager information, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_manager_info' or mention how it differs from other lookup tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_manager_info or get_team. It doesn't mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for appropriate usage.

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