get_live_availability

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: results come live from the API, the no-argument default returns only currently flagged players ordered newest-news-first, and named players are returned even when fully available. The status-code legend and chance_of_playing note further explain semantics the schema can't express.

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?

Front-loaded with the actionable instruction ('Call this before recommending...') before the mechanics, and every sentence carries a distinct fact. The status-code legend is dense but useful; overall length is justified by the tool's role as a pre-pick gate.

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 must convey return behavior, and it does: who is returned, ordering, and the inclusion of available players plus the chance_of_playing field. It stops short of describing the full record shape (e.g. the news text field), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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% (baseline 3), and the description still adds meaning beyond it: the empty-arguments default listing behavior and the non-obvious rule that explicitly passed players are returned even when fully available. It doesn't clarify array-combination semantics (e.g. AND vs OR between players and statuses), which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 (FPL injury, suspension and availability flags) and source ('fetched live from the FPL API'), which clearly separates it from static siblings like search_players and get_xpts. An agent can tell immediately that this is the freshness/availability check, not a general player lookup.

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 an explicit prescriptive trigger: 'Call this before recommending, picking or captaining any player,' which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It also documents the two invocation modes (no args = all flagged players; args = filtered lookup), though it doesn't name a sibling it should be preferred over or excluded for.

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