espnfantasy_league_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auth requirements ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and the full return object structure, which goes beyond the provided structured metadata.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a concise return block, an example, and an auth note. The 'Also answers this: sleeper_league' line is slightly cryptic but does not add unnecessary bulk. Overall, every component 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description includes a detailed return structure, a concrete API example, and auth context. For a read-only settings tool, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results, though it could benefit from noting any error cases or rate limits.

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 descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load. The example shows concrete values (game: 'ffl', seasonId: 2018, leagueId: 1234) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 league rules (name, size, scoring, roster slots, schedule/playoff format, waiver/keeper/trade settings) and provides a detailed return structure. The 'Also answers this: sleeper_league' note helps disambiguate from a commonly confused sibling, making the purpose highly specific.

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 includes an example ('Scoring + roster rules for a league') and notes auth prerequisites ('works without a key; cookie unlocks more'), implying when the tool is useful. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or contrast with espnfantasy_league, but the example and cross-reference provide clear context.

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