persistent_value_players

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only offers a metaphorical statement about persistent mispricing, without mentioning that this is a read-only query, how data is processed, or what the output contains. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 compact and stylistically coherent, with no unnecessary fluff. Each sentence contributes to the concept, though the opening is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement, reducing structural clarity.

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 three optional parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It conveys the core idea but lacks operational details such as parameter meanings, result format, or any contextual limitations. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of guidance in the description.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, seasons, min_seasons). It subtly hints at the multi-season concept with 'three is a trait,' which partially relates to min_seasons, but no explicit mapping is provided.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: to return players who have beaten their draft cost repeatedly, not just once. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing these as players the market persistently misprices. However, it lacks a specific action verb like 'list' or 'get,' making it more conceptual than operational.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like value_picks or separation_report. The description implies a use case for identifying persistent value but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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