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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds a useful inventory of returned fields but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, leading with the resource scope before listing fields. It is slightly list-heavy as a catalog of return values rather than a purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 does the right thing by enumerating return fields, which is reasonably complete for a simple one-ID read. However, it omits any guidance on acquiring the league_id or on when this tool should be preferred over sibling league tools, leaving a real gap.

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 single parameter league_id carries only a regex pattern, with no description in either the schema or the description text. The description does not explain the ID's origin (e.g., via sleeper_find_leagues) or format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required when coverage is under 50%.

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 names a specific resource (one league's setup) and enumerates exactly which fields are returned (name, season, size, current week, scoring format, manager-to-roster map). It implies the verb 'get' and the singular scope, which implicitly contrasts with sleeper_find_leagues, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as sleeper_find_leagues, which an agent would plausibly need to obtain a league_id first. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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