mfl_rosters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and variability. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: the exact return structure, the meaning of 'status', the conditional presence of salary/contract ('if the league uses them'), and specific auth requirements (works without a key, MFL_COOKIE unlocks more). No contradiction with 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 well-organized and front-loaded: the main purpose first, then return format, example, and auth note. It avoids redundant fluff and packs necessary details (status enum, conditional fields, auth) into a compact format. Slightly more structure than the minimum, but efficient.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return structure explicitly, which is crucial for correct use. It covers auth, conditional fields, and a join hint. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but given readOnly annotations, this is acceptable. The example further clarifies 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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example using year, L, and FRANCHISE, but it doesn't meaningfully elaborate beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., W or APIKEY are not explained further). The example is helpful but not a major semantic addition.

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 every franchise's roster with player status and salary/contract, which is specific. It also mentions joining to mfl_players for names, indirectly distinguishing it from that sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like mfl_injuries or mfl_free_agents, so it's not a full 5.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get rosters) and a usage hint to join to mfl_players for names, which guides the agent. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for injuries use mfl_injuries), but the context is clear enough. The example showing FRANCHISE usage also helps.

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