espnfantasy_player_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the auth requirements ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more') and by detailing the return structure, which is absent from an output schema.

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 longer than average but well-structured with clear sections for the main purpose, return shape, example, and auth. The first sentence is front-loaded and the additional content (returns, example) is directly useful, though it could be condensed slightly.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description takes on the burden of explaining both usage and return values. It provides a full return structure, a concrete invocation example, and auth notes, making it highly complete for an agent to select and 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the fantasy_filter for free agents/waivers and showing a full example with sort and limit. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions and clarifies the intended usage pattern.

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 identifies the tool as the league's player pool with ownership %, ratings, projections, and injury status, and explicitly brands it as 'the waiver-wire tool'. This distinguishes it from sibling ESPN Fantasy tools by focusing on player data and free-agent/waiver use cases.

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 tells users to 'pass a status filter for FREE AGENTS / WAIVERS' and provides a concrete example for top free agents, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, just that it is the waiver-wire tool.

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