Transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are grouped club-by-club into arrivals and departures, omitting window_id yields the latest window, and narrowing by team_id reduces response size. It stops short of discussing pagination or limits, which the schema handles.

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-loads the core definition in one sentence, then moves to use cases and routing in a compact second paragraph. Slightly dense with quoted examples, but no sentence is wasted and the important scoping advice appears early.

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 six optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description does enough by explaining the returned structure (signed vs. left, per club) and the default of the latest window. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether the limit spans all teams, but the essential calling information is present.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter carries a clear enum or format note, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces team_id narrowing and window_id sourcing from `windows`, but that information is already present in the schema descriptions, adding little new meaning.

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 and resource ('Get the football transfer list of a window') and immediately defines the shape of the data ('club by club: players signed and players who left'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like v3_news, v3_team_players, and v3_search, which none of them cover transfer movements.

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 concrete example intents ('who did Esteghlal sign', 'all Iranian league transfers', 'loan deals') and an operational tip to filter by team_id to keep answers short. It also routes the agent elsewhere for related needs: `windows` for past window ids and `news` for headlines, which is explicit alternative-routing.

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