sleeper_matchups

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the relationship between rosters sharing a matchup_id (no home/away), the return structure, and auth requirements, which goes beyond 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 mostly well-structured with return format, example, and auth, but the final 'Also answers this' line is vague and detracts from focus; it does not clearly earn its place.

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 read-only data retrieval, the description provides sufficient detail: return format, an example, auth note, and matchup semantics. The ambiguous ESPN cross-reference is the only weakness, but overall it is complete enough 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both week and league_id. The description's example reinforces usage but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 one week's matchups with roster points, starters, and per-player scoring. It is specific about the resource and content, though it lacks a direct verb form and the trailing cross-reference to ESPN tools adds ambiguity.

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 implies use for Sleeper league matchups and provides an example, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. The 'Also answers this' line hints at covering similar ESPN tools but is ambiguous and does not give clear exclusions.

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