Get League

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation but does not disclose what fields are returned, whether the league data is fully populated, or any error behavior (e.g., invalid/nonexistent league ID). While 'Get' signals non-destructive behavior, the lack of detail on response specifics is a gap.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It avoids redundancy with the title and schema, containing no filler words. It is slightly under-specified regarding return details, but the brevity is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description is functionally adequate: the schema covers the parameter, and the description outlines the core operation. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of common error cases or rate-limit considerations, it leaves minor gaps for an agent that needs to handle failures gracefully.

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 100%, as the schema already fully describes the one parameter ('The Sleeper league ID.'). The description adds no further semantic nuance, such as format expectations or examples, so it meets the baseline without adding value 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific league's details'), and identifies the key identifier ('league ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_leagues (which lists leagues) by focusing on a single league's details.

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 the primary use case—fetching details for one league—but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_leagues or other league-related siblings. It does not state scenarios for which this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, leaving some inference to the agent.

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