get_league_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the returned data but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a read-only aggregate tool, this is minimally acceptable but lacks transparency.

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 five concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then listing returned data, optional filter, and usage advice. No extraneous information, every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers what it returns and when to use it. It does not mention its read-only nature, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single optional parameter, so the schema already describes it. The description adds a usage phrase ('drill into a specific sport archetype vertical') but no additional parameter details beyond the schema. Score at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an aggregate league market index, listing specific returned elements (total count, averages, top movers/decliners) and optional filtering. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing a 'birds-eye view' of the marketplace.

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 description explicitly advises when to use: for a birds-eye view of the entire marketplace or to drill into a specific sport vertical. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context implies that more detailed tools exist for individual league analysis.

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