Get Traded Picks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read operation and adds the meaningful nuance that future picks are included, but it does not define what counts as a 'traded' pick or describe edge cases such as empty results or sorting.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence where every word adds information. It avoids redundancy with the title and clearly states the core action, resource, scope, and future-pick nuance without waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it leaves the response shape and the exact semantics of 'traded' to inference, and it does not explicitly point to get_draft_picks as the alternative for non-traded picks.

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%, with league_id already described as 'The Sleeper league ID.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('traded draft picks'), and a scope ('in a league'), while also noting the inclusion of future picks. The word 'traded' differentiates this from the sibling get_draft_picks, making the tool's purpose clear without needing to open the schema.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The description implies that this tool is for traded draft picks, especially future ones, and that get_draft_picks is the broader sibling, but the agent must infer this rather than being told directly.

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