Whose pick is it

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation logic and special cases (linear, third-round reversal), and explains the optional flag behavior. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens if draft_id is invalid or draft is complete, or describe the return format/side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is logically placed second. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter computation tool, the description covers the core purpose and optional behavior but lacks important context: there is no output schema, no note about error conditions (e.g., draft finished), no mention of whether this function is deterministic from the given inputs, and no cross-reference to related draft tools. This leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 50%: my_roster_id has a schema description and the description adds specific meaning ('on_the_clock flag and picks-until-your-next-turn'), but draft_id is only named, not explained. The description does not clarify that draft_id is used to fetch the draft state, relying on the agent's inference.

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 a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('the pick currently on the clock'), and explains the mathematical approach (snake-draft, linear drafts, third-round reversal). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_draft_picks' by focusing on current turn calculation rather than listing picks.

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 gives context for when the tool is useful (knowing whose pick it is) and how to use the optional my_roster_id, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than clearly scoped against siblings.

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