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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying that players not covered by Muffed are listed as 'uncovered' rather than omitted, clarifying the tool's completeness behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core concept. However, it relies on the unexplained term 'Muffed' and the phrase 'published Muffed surfaces' is awkward, slightly compromising clarity for conciseness.

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 and no parameter explanation, the description does not fully cover what an agent needs to know. It lacks return format, parameter semantics, and clarity on the 'Muffed' concept, though the simple structure and annotations partially compensate.

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 meaning or format of league_id or team. It only vaguely references 'one team's roster' without connecting to the required parameters, leaving the agent without sufficient information to construct valid arguments.

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 maps a team's roster to verified figures and published Muffed surfaces, which is a specific resource and operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sleeper_get_league or sleeper_standings_story by focusing on roster-specific data, though the term 'Muffed' is unexplained.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies input via league_id and team but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when other Sleeper tools might be more appropriate.

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