rookie_report

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 goes beyond a simple 'returns projections' by explaining the model's dependence on draft capital and landing spot, deliberately low consistency, mid-season role volatility, and the possibility of a healthy scratch floor. This gives the agent a realistic sense of output reliability, even though it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe return format (which the output schema covers).

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 front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds meaningful context about methodology and limitations without padding. It earns its length by explaining the inherent uncertainty and modeling approach, which is essential for an agent to interpret the output correctly.

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?

The description covers the tool's conceptual purpose, data sources, and statistical caveats, providing a strong mental model for the agent. The absence of parameter documentation is a gap, but given the output schema exists (which likely describes return fields) and the tool is straightforward (a filtered report), the description is sufficiently complete for the expected use case.

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 description mentions no parameter details, and the input schema only provides field titles and defaults (limit, position), with no explanations. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. An agent would have no idea what values 'position' accepts or how 'limit' affects the report. This is a significant gap.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Projected rookies for this season, from draft capital and landing spot.' This identifies both the action (projected) and the resource (rookies), and distinguishes the tool from sibling reports like player_report or best_available by focusing exclusively on rookies. The methodology explanation further reinforces what this tool uniquely provides.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need rookie projections—and offers a caution ('widest error bars on the board') that could guide against using it for high-stakes decisions. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it versus other tools. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it only partially addresses the selection decision.

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