draftkings_featured_leagues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is honest about scope ('public', 'currently marked as featured') and clearly implies a read-only listing by 'Returns ... leagues.' It also describes output content at the item level. It could more explicitly state that the call is a zero-parameter read operation and how the list is ordered/paginated, but for this simple endpoint the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence serves as an immediate identifier, the second specifies the return content and scope, and the third gives concrete downstream usage. Every sentence adds practical 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?

For a parameter-free listing tool with no output schema, the description equips an agent to call it correctly, understand each item's fields, and know how to wire the `id` into downstream endpoints. The missing bits, such as explicit list-format details, are minors in a tool this simple. It is complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage of meaningful property documentation. Because there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate for anything. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names an exact, narrow resource: 'public DraftKings Sportsbook leagues currently marked as featured in its sport navigation.' It enumerates what each item contains (id, tags, live-offer status, featured ordering), which clearly distinguishes it from a general league-list tool like draftkings_leagues.

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 gives actionable downstream guidance: 'Use the `id` as `league_id` with /draftkings/sportsbook/odds and /draftkings/sportsbook/futures.' It clearly conveys the intended role of this tool in a multi-step workflow. It does not explicitly name when to prefer draftkings_leagues over this tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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