Get Users in League

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys a read operation and the output fields, but does not mention authorization needs, pagination, empty-league behavior, or that it returns users rather than roster entries. This leaves moderate, non-misleading gaps.

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 with no filler. The parenthetical efficiently adds relevant detail about the returned user fields without bloating the text.

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 endpoint with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. It stops short of describing pagination, error handling, or exact response structure, but those are minor for this simple 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 schema already provides 100% coverage by describing league_id as 'The Sleeper league ID.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('all users'), and a scope ('in a league'), plus the key fields returned (display names/team names). It is semantically distinguishable from sibling tools like get_user (a single user) and get_rosters (rosters rather than users).

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_user or get_rosters. The imperative 'Get all users...' implies its use case, but no when/when-not conditions or sibling exclusions are stated.

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