sleeper_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by stating 'Auth: none needed' and listing the exact return structure, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., behavior on missing draft_id, pagination, or rate limits). This is adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 compact: a purpose line, a returns list, a short example, and an auth note. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. The example label ('Example: A draft's settings') is slightly ambiguous because it shows the request parameter rather than the returned settings, but it is still reasonably clear.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description covers the essential points: what the tool does, what it returns, an example, and authentication requirements. It could be improved by noting that the draft_id should be obtained from a prior call, but the schema already hints at this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains that draft_id comes from sleeper_league_drafts and is part of the URL path. The description adds little beyond an example value, so it does not meaningfully compensate or expand beyond the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the resource as 'One draft's configuration' and enumerates the fields included, making it distinct from sibling tools like sleeper_league_drafts (which lists drafts) and sleeper_draft_picks (which fetches picks). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Get' or 'Retrieve', relying on the tool name and return section to convey the operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The only contextual hint is in the schema ('from sleeper_league_drafts'), which hints at a prerequisite but is not part of the description itself. The example shows a request but no comparative usage advice.

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