mfl_player_scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact return structure, the league-specific comparability caveat, the auth requirements (works without key, MFL_COOKIE unlocks more), and an example call. No contradictions with annotations. It does not cover rate limits or data freshness, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so this is well-rounded.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return format, an example, and auth note. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value (purpose, structure, example, auth). The structure is logical and the example is practical, though the auth line could be seen as separate but is useful.

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 tool has 10 parameters (all described in schema), annotations cover safety, and the description provides the return structure, an example, and auth details, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It lacks pagination and error-handling details, but these are not critical for a read-only endpoint with a clear response format.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description's example uses 'PLAYERS': "13593,14208" (a string) while the schema declares PLAYERS as an array. This directly contradicts the schema and could mislead the agent on how to format the parameter. The example is otherwise helpful for year, L, and W, but this inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 returns fantasy points under a specific league's scoring rules, for a week, YTD, or weekly average, and includes both rostered players and free agents. This differentiates it from sibling tools like mfl_rosters or mfl_free_agents, which list players without scores. The verb and resource are precise and the scope is unambiguous.

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 what the tool does and that scores are league-specific and comparable across players, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of other MFL score-related tools (e.g., mfl_projected_scores for projections, mfl_live_scoring for live scores). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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