get_fixture_run

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the data is live from the FPL API, the FDR scale is defined (1 easiest, 5 hardest), and the omit-parameter behavior produces a ranked list. It stops short of describing response shape or refresh/rate behavior, but for a read-only analytics tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is computed, how to call it in both modes, and when to prefer it. Purpose and the key routing decision are front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results — and it does, listing average FDR, home/away split, blank/double gameweeks, and the ordering of the ranked list. For a two-parameter read-only tool, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting team (rank all 20 teams, easiest first) rather than just 'optional team filter'. It also anchors the default window length to the next gameweek, adding slight meaning beyond the schema's 'default 5'.

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+resource (fixture run difficulty) and enumerates exactly what it computes: average FDR on a 1-5 scale, home/away split, and blank/double gameweeks. Explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_fixtures, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives both modes of use — 'Pass team for its fixture-by-fixture run; omit it to rank all 20 teams, easiest run first' — and names the alternative with its selection condition: 'Prefer this over get_fixtures when judging transfers, captaincy or chip timing.' When-to-use, when-to-use-the-other, and the branching behavior of an optional parameter are all explicit.

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