get_player_stats_all_weeks

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return contents (player info, weekly stats, season totals, games played), the filtering behavior (only weeks that have been played), and the scoring scheme (PPR). It stops short of mentioning auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but behavioral coverage is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and cleanly organized into Args and Returns sections. It is slightly redundant, listing return contents once in prose and again in a trailing 'Returns:' block, but every sentence otherwise earns 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers them without creating confusion. For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: player_id is documented as required, non-empty, converted to string, with a concrete example; season is marked optional, accepts integer or string, has a stated range (2009-2030), and a default of the current season. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare 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?

State a specific verb (get) and resource (real stats for all weeks of a season for a specific player), and explicitly distinguishes itself from projections. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings like get_player_by_sleeper_id or search_players_by_name.

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 note 'fetches real game stats, not projections' gives implied guidance on the data type, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternative tools for player lookups. Usage is inferable from purpose rather than stated.

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