matchup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that `matchup_legs` is an authenticated query, that it returns 'Unauthorized' without a token, and that the tool degrades to public REST giving pairings without projections instead of failing. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the auth fallback caveat follows immediately. The Args block is compact and each line adds information not present in the schema.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the key operational caveat (auth-dependent projection availability) plus both parameter defaults. Only the week parameter's valid range and the practical difference between authenticated and fallback output shape are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that league_id_ defaults to SLEEPER_LEAGUE_ID and that week 0 means the current week. The raw schema only shows empty/0 defaults with no meaning.

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+resource: 'This week's matchups and every team's projected total.' An agent can tell it deals with weekly matchups and projections, distinguishing it from siblings like matchup_odds or standings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from.

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 conditions behavior on authentication ('without a token ... falls back to public REST'), which is useful usage context, but it never says when to prefer this tool over matchup_odds or roster. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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