espnfantasy_nav

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, and open-world annotations, the description adds useful context: it works without a key, and an optional cookie unlocks more data. It also discloses the payload's lightweight nature and the return structure, which is consistent with the annotations.

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 exceptionally compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return shape, an example, and auth note. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing key return fields and providing an example. It covers auth, intended use, and request shape, though the 'status:{…}' abbreviation leaves some detail unspecified, which is acceptable for an orientation endpoint.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value with a concrete example request including game, seasonId, and leagueId, illustrating how to form a valid call.

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 a lightweight nav payload with league name, size, and the current user's team, for cheap orientation before a heavy call. It lists return fields and an example, making the purpose unmistakable, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.

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 explicitly positions this as a cheap pre-call orientation tool, providing clear usage context. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusions.

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