fpl_get_double_gameweeks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms this is an informational read operation, but does not describe what 'information' is returned, whether results can be empty, how num_weeks affects behavior, or any edge cases around upcoming double gameweeks.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word adds meaning, and the core concept is stated immediately.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explain what the returned information looks like or how it relates to sibling tools like blank gameweeks, so while minimally callable, the context is not fully complete.

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% because the only parameter, num_weeks, has a clear description and default value. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('information about upcoming double gameweeks'), and defines the key concept ('where teams have multiple fixtures'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fpl_get_blank_gameweeks conceptually, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fpl_get_blank_gameweeks or fpl_get_gameweek_status. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context without exclusions or conditions.

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