Games Get Transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies the scope of "transactions" by listing the five event types, but says nothing about ordering, time window, or result volume.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical enumeration of transaction types earns its place by defining the ambiguous term "transactions."

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it covers purpose and data scope but leaves the limit parameter, result ordering, and temporal coverage unexplained. An agent could invoke it correctly but cannot predict the shape or recency of the response.

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 67%: sport and league carry example values in the schema, while limit has only a default of 25 with no description. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning for any parameter — notably not explaining what limit truncates or whether results are ordered newest-first.

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 and resource ("Fetch recent league player transactions") and enumerates the transaction types covered (trades, signings, waiver claims, activations, IR). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings since no other tool in the list covers transactions, though "recent" is left undefined.

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 implies usage — retrieve league transaction activity — but never states when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisite conditions (e.g., whether a league must be in season, how far back the data goes). Usage must be inferred from the name and enumerated types.

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