espnfantasy_rosters

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: the response is explicitly flagged as LARGE (hundreds of KB), the auth behavior is disclosed, and the return shape is shown. The 'unlocks more' cookie note is slightly vague, but no annotation contradiction exists.

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 well-structured and compact: an overview, a size warning, a return shape, an example, and an auth note. Each section earns its place and the most important caveat (LARGE response) is front-loaded near the start.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description supplies a useful return-shape sketch, example request, auth note, and size warning. It does not discuss pagination, errors, or rate limits, but the essential context for invoking the tool is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds a concrete example illustrating seasonId/leagueId/scoringPeriodId for a weekly roster request, but it does not add much beyond that baseline.

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 resource and scope: every fantasy team's roster with manager ownership, lineup slot, acquisition type, and player stats. It is distinct from sibling tools like espnfantasy_teams and espnfantasy_standings, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 example ('All rosters, week 3') and wording 'Every fantasy team's roster' imply when to use this tool, but there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or what to use instead. The LARGE-size warning is useful, but the guidance is mostly implied rather than direct.

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