Get Scouted Players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not confirm this is a read-only operation, does not describe the return shape (list of players? with which fields?), and says nothing about pagination or whether scouting is per-league or global.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no second sentence to carry scope, filters, or return info.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description should explain the read behavior and the league_id semantics. It leaves both an agent's key questions unanswered.

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 entirely undocumented. The description never mentions league_id, so the agent cannot tell whether it scopes the watchlist to one league or merely defaults/ignores it, nor what null means.

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?

"Your watchlist / scouted players" identifies the resource but uses no verb, so the agent must infer this is a read operation. The word "scouted" loosely ties it to the scout_player/unscout_player siblings, but the description never states the relationship.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_players, get_my_squad, or the scout/unscout tools. The possessive "Your" implies personal scouting data, but no conditions or alternatives are named.

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