draftkings_teams

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by describing the public Teams page, but it does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or whether auth is required. For a low-risk list endpoint, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 short, mostly front-loaded, and gets to the core behavior quickly. The opening noun phrase restates the tool name somewhat, but the rest of the description is efficient and the allowed values list is useful for enforcement.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers enough: what the tool returns, the source page, the league scope, and the valid league values. It leaves the return shape underdescribed, but an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 schema already documents the league parameter with 100% coverage, including the allowed values. The description adds little beyond restating those values, which is fine but not additive.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'teams listed on DraftKings Sportsbook's public Teams page for one league.' It is specific about scope, but it does not explicitly call out sibling tools like draftkings_team or draftkings_leagues, so differentiation relies on the plural 'teams' and 'for one league.'

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 clear context: use this tool to get teams for exactly one supported league, with the allowed league values spelled out. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives for getting a single team or a list of leagues.

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