espnfantasy_status

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description adds auth behavior (works without a key, cookie enables more) and the return object shape. This expands on the structured metadata, though it does not cover error conditions or rate limits.

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: purpose, return shape, example, and auth note. Every sentence adds value and the format is scannable, with no filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides a useful return-shape outline and an auth note. It covers the core status fields, but the waiverProcessStatus sub-object is truncated and field meanings like previousSeasons are unexplained. For a simple status tool, this is mostly complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, parameter descriptions already document game, view, leagueId, and seasonId. The description's example reinforces the combination but provides no new semantic details beyond the schema, earning the baseline 3.

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's purpose: retrieving league lifecycle status including current matchup period, latest scoring period, season activity, and waiver dates. This distinguishes it from sibling fantasy tools focused on rosters, scores, or transactions.

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 implies usage by listing the status fields, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other espnfantasy_* tools or mention alternatives/exclusions. The example clarifies the input format but not the decision boundary.

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