espnfantasy_league

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond those: the exact return shape, that it returns 'whatever the requested views add,' and the auth note. No contradictions; this is a solid addition.

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 dense but efficient, with a front-loaded purpose, a clear return shape, and a compact example. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 complex, flexible tool with 6 parameters and many possible views, the description covers the escape-hatch purpose, view selection, an example, scoringPeriodId requirements, and auth. It could more explicitly recommend dedicated tools when they suffice, but the 'no dedicated tool fits' phrase covers that. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by providing a concrete example, listing verified views, and highlighting that scoringPeriodId is required for specific views like mBoxscore and mRoster-at-week. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 opens with 'Raw league read with ANY combination of views' and immediately frames it as 'the escape hatch when no dedicated tool below fits, or to fetch several views in one round trip.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many dedicated sibling tools (espnfantasy_teams, espnfantasy_rosters, etc.) and states its specific resource and capability.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'when no dedicated tool below fits, or to fetch several views in one round trip.' It also provides an example and notes that scoringPeriodId is required by certain views, and explains the auth context ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more'). This is complete guidance.

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