get_trending_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating the return format (player_id and activity count) and the time-window based ranking. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds use-case context without fluff. Every sentence contributes value, though the second paragraph could be condensed slightly without loss.

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 appropriately states the return values (player_id and activity count). It also gives a pointer for ID translation, covering the typical follow-up. Sorting order and pagination are not mentioned but are implicitly handled by the limit parameter. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including defaults and constraints. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema explains; it only loosely references the time window and adds/drops, which the schema already details.

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 states a specific action ('rank players trending') and a specific resource ('by adds or drops over a recent time window'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on ranking activity, and it explicitly mentions returning player_id and activity count, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear use cases (waiver-wire discovery, injury monitoring, etc.) and directs the agent to use get_players for ID-to-name translation. It lacks explicit contrasts with other tools like get_transactions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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