fpl_get_league_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get rich analytics,' implying a read operation, but does not state whether results are computed on demand, whether the operation is read-only, what output shape to expect, or any league-scope constraints. It does not contradict annotations because there are none, but it adds almost no behavioral context.

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 one short sentence with no structural waste and front-loads the action and object. However, 'rich analytics' is a vague filler phrase that doesn't earn its place, and the brevity is not used to add differentiating detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a multi-mode analysis_type parameter, this one-line description is insufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'analytics' includes, how it differs from standings, or what each analysis_type mode returns, leaving too much to inference.

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 100% description coverage and documents league_id, start_gw, end_gw, and analysis_type with defaults and choices. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 100% coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Fantasy Premier League mini-league'), so an agent can tell this is a league-level analytics tool. However, 'rich analytics' is vague and does not differentiate it from siblings like fpl_get_league_standings or clarify the specific analysis modes beyond what the schema already lists.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fpl_get_league_standings or fpl_analyze_players. The only implied context comes from the tool name itself, which is not enough to route an agent to the correct tool among 12 siblings.

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