sleeper_league

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by showing the full response schema (e.g., league_id, scoring_settings, settings fields), providing an example league_id, and noting that no authentication is needed. This helps set expectations for the tool's behavior without contradicting the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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-structured with a brief summary, a 'Returns' section, an example, and an auth note. It is information-dense without being unnecessarily verbose, though the return schema block is somewhat long. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan.

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 there is no output schema, the description effectively compensates by providing a detailed return structure and an example, which is sufficient for understanding what the tool returns. It could be even more complete with notes on error handling or edge cases, but it is largely complete for its purpose.

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 input schema already provides a thorough description of the single parameter, league_id, including where to find it. The tool description adds an example value but no further semantic detail. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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 outlines what the tool does by listing the league configuration aspects it returns (scoring rules, roster slots, playoff format, etc.) and provides a detailed return structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sleeper_league_rosters, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of Sleeper sibling tools, mentioning that this is for league configuration specifically and using others for rosters or users would have been helpful. The usage is implied by the return fields but not stated.

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