Resolve Players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately conveys a read-style transformation and lists the output fields, but it omits the caching behavior implied by force_refresh in the schema and does not mention how unknown or invalid player IDs are handled. It does not contradict anything, but deeper behavioral disclosure would improve it.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core operation and return attributes are front-loaded, and the example context is included efficiently without distracting from the main purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the input, the typical source of that input, and the four output attributes. The only notable gap is that cache-refresh behavior is left to the parameter schema rather than explained in the description, which is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100%; both player_ids and force_refresh are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the use-case example, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb, 'Resolve', with a clear object ('a list of Sleeper player IDs') and a concrete outcome ('into player names, teams, positions, and injury status'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling getter tools like get_rosters or get_matchups, which return raw data rather than enriched player 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 parenthetical 'e.g. from rosters or matchups' gives a clear context for when to use the tool: after fetching raw roster or matchup data. It provides good usage orientation, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it.

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