who_should_i_pick

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool weighs projected value, consistency, roster slots, and survival odds, giving insight into its decision logic. It does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or triggers side effects, though the 'analyst call' wording implies analysis, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and supporting detail in the second. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. The main gaps are the unexplained 'limit' parameter and lack of explicit alternative guidance. Overall, the description is adequate for a simple analysis tool but leaves some usage and parameter semantics unclear.

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 a single 'limit' parameter with default 6, but the description never mentions 'limit' or explains how it affects the output. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving the parameter meaningless to the agent.

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 answers 'who to take right now, and why', identifying a specific decision task. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the 'live' draft-analyst nature and the factors it weighs, making it distinct from planning or generic best-available tools.

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 phrase 'live draft-analyst call' and 'your next pick' provides clear context for immediate use during a draft. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like best_available or plan_my_draft, nor does it name any alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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