trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: this is a crowd/aggregate signal rather than an analytical projection, which tells the agent how much to trust it. But it says nothing about auth requirements, refresh cadence, or how 'all Sleeper leagues' is scoped, and the output schema covers return shape.

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 definition is front-loaded in the first sentence and the args block is compact. The em-dash aside on crowd vs analytical signal earns its place, though the 'Args:' list is slightly redundant with the schema field titles.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the enum values, the default, and the nature of the data. It is close to complete; only the league/season scope of the aggregation is left unstated.

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%, so the description is doing the work. Critically, it supplies the 'add'/'drop' enum values that the schema does not declare (parameters with enums: 0), and it confirms the default of 25 for limit. This is real added meaning beyond the schema.

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: players being added or dropped most, with explicit scope 'across all Sleeper leagues'. It also differentiates itself from analytical siblings (player_signal, signal_divergence) by framing itself as a crowd signal. Minor gap: it never names a sibling tool directly.

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 gives a usage rationale — useful for knowing what you will have to bid against — which implies when the tool matters. However it names no alternatives and states no explicit when-not conditions, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with waiver_targets or player_signal.

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