get_team_roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (name, position, projected points, injury status, starting/bench slot) and the non-obvious default week semantics, which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about permissions, whether repeated calls are cheap, or freshness of projections.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a compact Args block and a return summary; each sentence earns its place. Minor structural clutter from the docstring-style formatting, but no wasted content.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly required, yet the description still covers them without harm. With two params fully explained, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly; only the lack of sibling differentiation tempers it.

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 0%, so the description must do the work and does: team_name is explained as fuzzy, case-insensitive substring matching against team or owner name, and week is explained with a default-resolution rule. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, only missing exact bounds on week.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full roster for any team in the league.' That is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_team_analysis, get_teams, or compare_teams, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone why this tool is picked over those.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The only implied context is that this surfaces a fantasy roster. Given many roster-adjacent siblings, the agent gets no help routing between this and get_team_analysis or get_teams.

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