sleeper_draft_picks

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 clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists the exact return fields, notes that metadata carries player names (eliminating the need for a large player file), and explicitly states auth is not needed. This is more than what annotations alone provide.

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 and well-organized: purpose, return structure, example, and auth. Every line adds distinct value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the input needed, and that no auth is required. With no output schema, the explicit return structure is helpful. It doesn't mention error scenarios or how to obtain draft_id, but those are minor gaps; the description is largely complete for its complexity level.

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 description covers draft_id fully (required, part of URL path), so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example value and clarifies that metadata carries player names, but this is more about return behavior than parameter semantics. The added value over the schema is marginal.

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 what the tool does: it returns every pick in a draft in order, with player and drafter info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sleeper_traded_picks (which covers traded picks) and sleeper_draft (draft details), making the purpose 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 provides clear context: use this to get all picks in a specific draft. It includes a concrete example of the required draft_id, showing how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like sleeper_traded_picks, so it stops short of a 5.

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