draft_value_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the value measurement philosophy ('Value is measured in points against what that draft slot actually returned') but fails to disclose what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, or how it handles the seasons and group_by inputs. The rationale is helpful but does not convey the tool's execution behavior.

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 relatively concise at three sentences, but the second sentence is long and focuses on the rationale against rank movement, which is not essential for understanding the tool's function. It could be tighter by front-loading the action and output.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the output represents or how the parameters influence it. Given the tool's complexity (two optional parameters, historical analysis), the lack of parameter guidance and output expectations leaves an agent under-equipped to use it effectively.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter ('seasons' or 'group_by'). An agent is given no hints about what values to provide or how they affect the analysis, making it impossible to invoke the tool with confidence.

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: 'Backtest: how preseason consensus rank compared to where players actually finished.' This provides a specific verb (backtest) and resource (consensus rank vs. actual finish), distinguishing it from other draft tools that focus on current value or recommendations.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools like value_picks or separation_report, leaving the usage context purely implied by the term 'Backtest.'

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