espnfantasy_league_defaults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: auth requirements ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and a partial return structure. The schema's note about invalid IDs returning 200 with no settings.name also adds transparency, though this lives in the schema rather than the description itself.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a terse return summary, a helpful example, and an auth note. However, the final line 'Also answers this: sleeper_league' is cryptic and does not earn its place—it introduces confusion without clarifying any tool relationship. Otherwise, the structure is efficient.

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 partially compensates by showing the return shape ({gameId, id, seasonId, settings, status}) and providing a working example. It also covers auth. However, it doesn't fully explain all response fields or the full range of behavior across different games, and the odd 'sleeper_league' reference adds noise. Still, for a relatively simple 3-parameter lookup, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: a concrete example call ({'game':'ffl','seasonId':2025,'scoringTypeId':3}) and the schema provides verified scoringTypeId mappings (1=Standard, 3=PPR, etc.). This goes beyond just restating the schema, particularly by showing how the parameters combine and by noting the edge case of unrecognized IDs.

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 returns ESPN's stock league templates (scoring/roster presets) by scoring-type id, with an explicit tie to 'the defaults a new league starts from.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like espnfantasy_league_settings, which retrieves settings for an existing league rather than default templates. The example call further reinforces the purpose.

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 usage context (when you need default templates by scoring type) and provides a concrete example, but it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The line 'Also answers this: sleeper_league' is ambiguous—it may suggest cross-tool applicability but doesn't clarify when to choose this over other ESPN fantasy tools. This leaves the guidance somewhat implicit.

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