espnfantasy_teams

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing authentication behavior ('works without a key; ESPN_FANTASY_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and fully specifying the return payload structure, which annotations do not cover.

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-organized with a summary line, return schema, example, and auth note. It is moderately sized and each section serves a purpose, though the return schema is somewhat lengthy. Overall, it is concise without wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by providing the full return structure and a concrete example. Combined with complete parameter descriptions and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details like pagination, error conditions, or rate limits.

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?

The input schema provides full documentation for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), including descriptions for leagueId, seasonId, game, and view. The description adds an example with concrete values but does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 that the tool provides fantasy teams with records, points for/against, playoff seed and projected rank, and includes a detailed return shape and example. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on team-level data rather than standings, rosters, or matchups, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists.'

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 does not mention alternative tools or specific conditions for when to use this tool vs siblings. The example implies usage for fetching teams in a league, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to related tools such as espnfantasy_standings or espnfantasy_rosters.

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