defense_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds key behavioral context: 'Rank 1 = toughest matchup' explains how to interpret the output, and '5-year view' specifies the time range. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but as a report tool, this is reasonably implied.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values are likely covered there. The description provides enough key context for selecting and understanding the tool's role, though it could briefly mention parameter usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'against a position' which relates to the position parameter, but does not explain possible values or the meaning of 'limit'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it provides 'defensive rankings against a position' with 'fantasy points allowed' over a '5-year view'. This is a specific verb-like noun (rankings) and resource (defensive performance against a position), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rookie_report or separation_report.

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?

It implies usage through 'This is what drives the schedule adjustment', giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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