espnfantasy_season

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already convey safety profile. The description adds useful context: the exact return fields, an example usage, and authentication behavior ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set'). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 return format block, an example call, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the return shape, an example, and auth requirements. It lacks edge-case behavior or error conditions, but these are less critical for a straightforward status 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (game, seasonId) are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds an example that illustrates parameter values, but does not introduce new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'One game-season's status' with a specific verb and resource, listing the key data points (current scoring period, start/end dates, active flag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like espnfantasy_games or espnfantasy_league by focusing on a single season's status.

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 an example call but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as espnfantasy_status or espnfantasy_games. The intended use is implied by the title and content, but no direct 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance is given.

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