league_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the key behavioral trait that the returned settings alter the meaning of other tools' outputs, which is genuinely useful context, but it never states that it is a read-only lookup, nor mentions auth or caching behavior.

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-loads the core insight that league settings govern how other outputs are read, then explains the impact in one further sentence. The Args block is slightly formal but earns its place by documenting the default.

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 are not the description's job, and the single optional parameter is addressed. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely complete, with only the read-only nature left implicit.

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% and the schema only shows an empty-string default. The description adds real value by clarifying the default source ('Defaults to SLEEPER_LEAGUE_ID'), but gives no format or validation detail for the single optional parameter.

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 identifies the resource precisely (league settings: scoring, roster slots, waiver type, trade rules) and frames why it matters, so an agent knows it returns league configuration. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not distinguish itself from any sibling, keeping it just below the top band.

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?

It strongly implies when the tool matters — before interpreting other tools' output, since settings 'silently change what a tool's output means' — but states no explicit when-to-use conditions or alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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