refresh_league

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: everything else reads from a cache that only this call invalidates. It does not mention cost, latency, rate limits against ESPN, or failure behavior, so it falls short of fully transparent for a network-fetch operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded before the caching context. Every clause earns its place.

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 and there are no parameters or annotations to compensate for, so the description only needed to convey purpose and cache semantics - both of which it covers. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters defined, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter text is present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Force a re-fetch of all league data from ESPN') and distinguishes itself from all 19 sibling read tools by explaining that they serve cached data. An agent can tell immediately this is the cache-invalidation counterpart to the get_* tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when scores, rosters, or transactions may have changed since the server started') and states the relationship to alternatives ('All other tools use cached data until this is called'). Both when-to-use and how-it-interacts-with-siblings are covered.

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