espnfantasy_pro_teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict these. It adds valuable behavioral context: auth behavior ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more'), a special team id (id 0 = free-agent/none), and the data structure with 33 NFL entries. This goes beyond the annotations without being excessive.

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-organized: a one-line purpose, a returns block with structure, an example, and an auth note. No filler sentences; every line contributes. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making parsing and understanding effortless.

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 compensates by providing a concrete return shape, a note about team count (33 entries for NFL), and a special case (id 0). It also mentions auth needs. It could be slightly more complete regarding non-NFL sports or variations in proGamesByScoringPeriod, but the essentials for correct invocation and interpretation are covered.

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%; every parameter is already described in the input schema (game enum, view default, required seasonId). The description adds an example binding game='ffl' and seasonId=2025, which helps illustrate valid input but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Pro (real-world) teams for a fantasy season' with a specific verb and resource scope, distinguishing it from fantasy-team-centric sibling tools like espnfantasy_teams. It enumerates exactly what is returned (ids, abbreviations, BYE weeks, games by scoring period), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 a clear context for use (fetching real-world pro teams and schedules for a fantasy season) with an explicit example ('NFL teams + bye weeks + week-by-week pro schedule'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'Pro' designation and sibling contrast make appropriate usage clear.

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