espnfantasy_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the auth requirement ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and the precise return shape including status flags (drafted, inProgress, completeDate) and all pick-level fields.

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 tightly organized into four distinct sections: a one-line purpose, a compact return-structure spec, a minimal JSON example, and a one-line auth note. Each part earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema content.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by inlining the full draftDetail/picks return structure, demonstrating a realistic call with an example, and disclosing auth behavior. Minor gaps remain — such as no explicit explanation of status-flag semantics or guidance for choosing among the game enum values beyond the schema — but overall the tool is well specified for a read-only data lookup.

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%: leagueId and seasonId are documented as required URL path parts, game has a full enum, and view is described as 'Leave as-is.' The description's example repeats these values (game=ffl, seasonId=2018, leagueId=1234), which reinforces usage but does not materially extend the schema's meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opening line 'Draft results — every pick in order with round, team, player, keeper flag and auction bid' names the resource (the fantasy draft) and enumerates the exact scope of what is returned, making the purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling espnfantasy tools like rosters, transactions, or standings.

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 concrete example invocation ('Full draft board' with game, seasonId, leagueId) which implies when to use the tool, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives such as espnfantasy_teams or espnfantasy_transactions. Usage is implied through the example and content summary, not directly guided.

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