espnfantasy_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds auth behavior (works without key, cookie unlocks more) and details the exact return structure, which is valuable context. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but for a simple read-only discovery endpoint, this is sufficient.

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 compact yet fully informative: a one-line purpose, a mock return shape, a concrete example, and an auth note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core directive.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how to use it. The mock return object covers field names and nesting, the example clarifies usage, and auth is addressed. This is complete for a discovery endpoint of this simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema covers 100% by default. The description compensates by explaining the output structure (top-level array of 5 with currentSeason/currentScoringPeriod), which is essential for using the returned values. It provides a mock return object and clarifies how to resolve IDs, adding meaning beyond an empty schema.

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 tool lists all five ESPN fantasy games with their current season IDs and scoring periods, with the specific directive to call it first to resolve seasonId/scoringPeriodId. This verb+resource structure (list/resolve) distinguishes it from sibling tools like espnfantasy_season, which appears to handle individual seasons.

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?

Explicitly states 'call this first to resolve seasonId/scoringPeriodId', providing a clear when-to-use directive. The example (resolve current NFL fantasy season + week) illustrates a concrete use case. It also notes auth requirements, indirectly guiding when a cookie is needed.

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