value_picks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of the gap values, which is essential for interpreting the output. The description implies a read-only analysis tool, though it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core concept stated upfront and the gap interpretation following logically. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly explains the core concept and interpretation, but the lack of parameter semantics creates a notable gap in fully understanding the tool's behavior.

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 the 'limit' or 'direction' parameters. While it explains the meaning of positive/negative gaps, it fails to connect these to the 'direction' parameter, leaving the agent guessing about how to control the output.

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 purpose: it shows draftable players where the model's ranking disagrees with the market. This distinguishes it from siblings like best_available or who_should_i_pick by focusing on discrepancies rather than simple 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to identify value picks) and explains the interpretation of positive and negative gaps. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for improvement in differentiation.

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