fpl_get_gameweek_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior: read-only retrieval of current, previous, and next gameweek status. However, it does not describe what fields are included, whether the data is live, or what 'status' means beyond the name.

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 that identifies the verb and scope immediately. The word 'precise' adds little information, but the overall length is appropriate and there is no meaningful redundancy.

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, parameterless getter with no output schema, the description gives a serviceable high-level account of what is returned and is distinguishable from player/league tools. It could be more explicit about the contents of a gameweek status object, but that is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('information about current, previous, and next gameweeks'), which is more specific than the bare tool name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling gameweek-related tools like fpl_get_blank_gameweeks or fpl_get_double_gameweeks, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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