sleeper_players

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

No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the 14.6 MB payload, 12,221 player count including retired/practice-squad names, the return-shape caveat (an OBJECT keyed by id, not an array), the null-team-free-agent semantics, and the daily call limit. This is rich contextual disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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 long but every sentence is load-bearing — the size and caching warnings are operationally critical and clearly front-loaded. Purpose leads, followed by return shape, then warnings and example. The ALL-CAPS emphasis on caching is justified given the genuine risk of blowing model context. Slightly verbose but not padded.

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?

With one optional param and safety fully covered by annotations, the description fills the missing output-schema gap by explicitly detailing the return structure, null-team semantics, and the critical caching/frequency constraints. Combined with the verification data and example, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 single parameter is 100% schema-covered (enum nfl/nba/lfl, default nfl). The description adds an example call ({"sport": "nfl"}) and NFL-context remarks but no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'THE player id → name table. Every other Sleeper tool speaks in player ids and nothing else; this is the only thing that resolves them.' This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the many sibling sleeper_* tools that reference players by id. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit usage direction: it is the resolver for all other Sleeper tools' player ids, and it gives hard operational constraints — 'CALL THIS AT MOST ONCE A DAY AND CACHE IT' and 'resolve the handful of ids you actually care about and discard the rest.' It does not name a specific alternative tool, but it frames itself as unique within the Sleeper family, which effectively differentiates it. Exclusions are implied rather than naming explicit alternatives, keeping this at a 4.

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