get_manager_squad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: data is live from FPL's public API and requires no authentication, plus it inventories the returned fields. It does not discuss rate limits or freshness/caching, which keeps it below 5.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the identifier lookup and the usage hook. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical about the public API could be trimmed or placed last.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return payload and does so by listing the key fields. For a two-parameter, read-only tool the remaining gaps (error behavior for invalid team IDs, which gameweek is returned when omitted) are modest.

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 is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining where to find team_id ('the number in the URL of the manager's FPL Points page'), which the schema does not say. The gameweek parameter's default behavior is left entirely to the schema, so it is not a 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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves a manager's FPL squad for a gameweek, and enumerates the returned contents (captain, bench, bank, squad value, transfers, chips). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which deal with players, fixtures, and gameweek aggregates rather than a manager's own 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?

It states the primary use case explicitly: 'Use it as the starting point for transfer, captain and chip advice on their actual team.' It also explains how to obtain the required identifier. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives for adjacent needs (e.g. player-level stats via get_xpts), so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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