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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the report computes (points-for/win% spread, blowouts, inactive-heavy rosters), telling the agent what derived analysis it will get rather than raw data.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first names the report and its contents, the second gives the use-case triggers. Front-loaded and zero filler.

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 usefully enumerates the report's contents so the agent knows what to expect. Safety and idempotency are covered by annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't note anything about scope defaults (e.g. connected-league auto-pick), though the schema handles that.

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%, so every parameter (sport, season, provider, league_id, league_query, response_format) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional guidance on parameter usage, which is acceptable but earns only the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('THE COMMISSIONER REPORT for one league') and enumerates the three analytical outputs it produces: competitive balance, this week's blowouts, and inactive-heavy rosters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like fantasy_get_standings or fantasy_get_weekly_digest.

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?

Explicitly lists the trigger questions it answers ('is my league healthy/competitive', 'who's tanking', state-of-the-league summary), which gives strong when-to-use context. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when a simpler tool (e.g. get_standings) would be preferable.

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