best_available

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 explains sort_by options which gives insight into ranking behavior, but it does not disclose return format, whether the list is filtered by position, or any side effects. Some useful behavioral context, but incomplete.

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 brief and front-loaded, with one clear sentence plus a compact list of sort options. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits the meaning of limit and position, and does not clarify how to interpret the output despite an output schema being present. It provides some value but leaves critical gaps.

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 0%, yet the description only elaborates on sort_by values. 'limit' and 'position' are not explained in the description or schema, so the agent gets minimal semantics for those parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'The next best players still on the board' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'who_should_i_pick' by implying a list rather than a single recommendation.

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 conveys an implied use case (seeing best available players) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'who_should_i_pick' or 'value_picks'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it's only implied.

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