draftkings_teams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is a read ('Returns') from a 'public' page, which implicitly signals low risk and no authentication need. However, it does not describe the return format, team identifier structure, potential errors, or pagination, though for a simple one-parameter read these omissions are moderate rather than severe.

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 and front-loaded: an identifying noun phrase, a clear functional sentence, and the allowed values. The opening phrase is near-redundant with the tool name, and the allowed-values sentence duplicates the schema enum, but there is no filler or wasted prose.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers what is returned, the data source, the scope, and all valid inputs. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the returned team objects' shape, which would help an agent chain results into draftkings_team, but that omission does not prevent a correct first call.

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 already fully documents the single `league` parameter with an enum of all allowed values and a matching description. The description's 'Allowed `league` values' line merely restates the schema enum and adds no new semantic meaning, so it sits at the high-schema-coverage baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('teams listed on DraftKings Sportsbook's public Teams page'), and a clear scope ('for one league'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling draftkings_team, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 implies that the caller should supply a league value but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, especially draftkings_team (singular), draftkings_leagues, or draftkings_league_events. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so an agent must guess which of the DraftKings tools fits a given request.

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