pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by explaining that pending items come from the REST transactions feed because Sleeper has no GraphQL query for trades. It also notes the dependency on transaction_id for actions. It doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, but it provides key operational context.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately provides crucial context about the data source and ID dependency. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 has an output schema, so return values needn't be detailed. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves parameters entirely undocumented. It covers why the tool exists and its operational context, but the parameter gap reduces completeness.

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 for the two parameters (week and league_id_). The description does not mention either parameter or their meaning/defaults. This is a significant gap; the agent must infer that week and league_id_ are needed to scope the query.

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 it returns pending trades and waiver claims plus the IDs needed to act on them. It distinguishes itself from siblings like transactions and waiver_targets by its focus on actionable pending items with IDs. It's slightly less specific about the exact return format but the verb+resource is clear.

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 states that accept_trade, reject_trade, and cancel_waiver_claim need a transaction_id and this is the only place to get one. This tells the agent when to use this tool: before acting on a trade or waiver claim. It doesn't state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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