espnfantasy_league_defaults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond these: it discloses the auth requirement (works without a key, cookie unlocks more) and provides a sample return structure. It does not contradict annotations, and adds context about edge cases (other ids return 200 with no settings.name). This is valuable, though it could mention rate limits or pagination if relevant.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a return-format snippet, a concrete example, and an auth note, all in a few lines. There is no fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides a sample return structure, an example call, and important edge-case info. It also mentions authentication. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds extra value by providing verified scoringTypeId values for ffl (1=Standard, 3=PPR, 5=All-Play PPR, 6=Knockout) and noting edge behavior. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions, enriching the agent's understanding.

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 what the tool does: returns ESPN's stock league templates (scoring/roster presets) by scoring-type id, the defaults a new league starts from. It uses a specific verb ('returns'), names the resource ('stock league templates'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like espnfantasy_league_settings by focusing on defaults.

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 clear context: it is for retrieving the preset league defaults, as indicated by 'the defaults a new league starts from'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, lacking exclusions. The given example and auth note help, but no sibling comparison is made.

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