draft_picks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose two real traits: the result is filtered to traded picks only, and an auth token is required. It omits the safety profile (that this is a read-only query), any pagination/limit behavior, and what the league_id_ argument actually does.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the scope caveat and auth note. No wasted sentences, though the hard line breaks read slightly like fragments rather than prose.

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 return values need no explanation, and for a single-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, result scope, and auth. The only real gap is that the league_id_ input is left entirely undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter league_id_ is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer from the name alone that it scopes the query to a league, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (future draft picks) and the exact scope of the query (those that have changed hands). It is clearly distinct from siblings like keepers or trade_block, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate against.

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?

"Only TRADED picks appear — a manager who still holds all of his own shows nothing" tells the agent when results will be empty, which is genuinely useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or statement of prerequisites beyond the token note.

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