mfl_nfl_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool does NOT update live during games, and notes the auth requirement (works without a key, MFL_COOKIE unlocks more). This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and structured with a clear lead sentence, return format, example, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place, though the auth line could arguably be omitted for terseness. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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?

The description provides the return structure, the meaning of key fields, and the non-live behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. There is no output schema, so the description compensates well. Minor details like pagination or league context are not mentioned, but they are not essential for basic usage.

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 has a description in the schema (W, JSON, TYPE, year). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the example repeats the parameter usage. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 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 clearly states it returns the NFL schedule for one week, including kickoff times and both teams, and explicitly identifies kickoff as the lock time for players. It is specific about the resource and purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mfl_schedule, relying instead on the clear 'NFL' scope.

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 explains the primary use case (determining when players lock) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage context but lacks direct exclusions or named alternatives, which is a gap given the large sibling list.

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