mfl_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it states the auth requirement ('works without a key; MFL_COOKIE unlocks more if set') and describes the return shape, which is not in the annotations. This adds value beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 succinct and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a returns section, an example, and an auth note. It front-loads the core purpose and packs necessary detail without fluff. Slightly verbose due to the inline return structure, but still appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, return structure, an invocation example, and auth behavior. It does not mention error cases or edge conditions, but the schema covers parameters and the example clarifies typical usage. This is adequate for an idempotent read-only schedule tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter (year, L, W, F, JSON, TYPE, APIKEY). The description only offers an example with year, L, and W, which reinforces but does not extend parameter meaning. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but adds no new semantic detail.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement — 'The fantasy schedule — who you play, and the score for weeks already played.' — naming the verb (get schedule) and the resource (fantasy schedule). This distinguishes it from sibling MFL tools like mfl_league_standings or mfl_player_scores, and from mfl_nfl_schedule which is the NFL schedule, not the fantasy one. The return structure is also summarized, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. It provides an example call but no guidance on choosing this over other MFL tools. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but explicit routing to alternatives is absent.

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