get_league_matchups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns matchup information, roster IDs, points scored, player breakdowns, and matchup IDs, and it explains week conversion semantics, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects or describe any permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and then structured into Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat repetitive in the Returns section, which lists matchup fields and then states 'Returns: List of matchup dictionaries,' but the overall structure is clear 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 the low schema description coverage and the single required parameter, the description supplies enough detail about week semantics for an agent to call the tool correctly. It also describes return fields even though an output schema exists, and while it omits explicit usage routing, it is otherwise complete for this retrieval tool.

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 has 0% description coverage and only declares week as an integer, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining the 1-18 range, regular season versus playoff weeks, and that string values will be converted, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: getting head-to-head matchups for a specific week in the Token Bowl league. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_league_rosters, get_league_transactions, or get_league_info, none of which return weekly matchup data.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools. The week range and playoff context imply usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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