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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is free and requires no key, it details the contents of the explanation (factor by factor), and explicitly states what the projection does NOT model (injuries, camp news, schedule). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The detail on factors, explicit examples, non-modeled items, and the sibling alternative is dense but every sentence serves a purpose. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what the agent can expect. It enumerates the output components (projection, floor/ceiling band, boom/bust week shape, three ranks, model-market edge), states exclusions, cost/auth, and example queries. An agent has sufficient context to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100% and both scoring and platform have clear enum-based descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the context (e.g., platform presets, overrides). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Explain WHY the 2026 draft board ranks a player where it does, factor by factor.' It enumerates the exact factors and the three distinct ranks, which clearly distinguishes it from related tools like player_outlook or draft_board. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('why do you have <player> there', 'explain <player> ranking') and names the alternative (player_outlook) for when the user wants a plain outlook or verdict rather than reasoning. This gives an agent clear routing logic.

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