espnfantasy_communication

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 404 error when no communication group exists, the exact return shape, and auth behavior (works without key, cookie unlocks more). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

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 organized into clear sections: summary, return shape, example, and auth. It is efficient with no fluff, though the 404 condition is mentioned twice (once in the summary, once in the return note), which is a minor redundancy.

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 fully supplies the return structure. It also covers the error case (404), provides a concrete example, and explains authentication. This is highly complete for a read-only data access tool, giving the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters like game, seasonId, and leagueId are already well-documented. The description adds a concrete example with real values, which reinforces usage but does not introduce new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as the league message board / activity feed with examples of contents (chat topics, trade chatter, activity posts). It distinguishes this from sibling espnfantasy tools by focusing on communication data. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the intent is unambiguous.

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 provides a usage example and mentions authentication constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as espnfantasy_league or espnfantasy_teams. Usage context is implied through the resource name rather than explicitly contrasted.

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