Get fantasy browser preferences

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful context: data is 'locally saved' and the tool does not perform live Yahoo checks. This helps set expectations about source and side-effect-free behavior, though it could mention return format or missing-preference behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function; the second adds a critical limitation. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, where the data comes from (local), and what it explicitly does not do (Yahoo verification). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output content (the default league and team), which compensates for the empty input schema and clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: 'locally saved default Yahoo league and team'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fantasy_set_default_team (a setter) and the analysis/list tools by focusing on local preferences.

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 states it is for 'browser-driven workflows' and clarifies a key limitation: it does not inspect Yahoo or verify signed-in status. This implies when to use it (offline/local preference retrieval) and when not to rely on it (live Yahoo data), though it doesn't name an explicit alternative.

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