get_available_players

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, side effects, or data persistence. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the user to infer whether it modifies state or has other implications.

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 succinct and well-organized. It uses a short introductory phrase, then a clear bullet-like list of parameters with no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The description gives enough context for a simple read operation: it confirms the output is a ranked list of undrafted players. It lacks details on returned fields or error handling, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the information is adequate.

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?

All three parameters are fully described: position lists allowable values and the omit-all behavior, limit explains its purpose, and sort_by enumerates all options with explanations. This provides complete semantic coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Undrafted players, ranked.' It then enumerates each parameter with its meaning and valid values, leaving 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?

The description explains how to use each parameter (e.g., position options, sort_by choices, limit meaning) and indicates defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like get_player or get_roster, so guidance on tool selection is lacking.

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