Get team roster

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description does not contradict. Adds useful behavioral details such as 'without any stats' and lists output fields, but since annotations cover read-only nature, the bar is slightly lower. Still, description provides good context beyond annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence gives usage guidance and alternatives. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, defaults, and output fields. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% so parameters are already documented. Description adds value by stating defaults (today's date, configured team) which are not in schema. Baseline 3, plus 1 for extra context.

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 clearly states the verb-resource pair 'Get a team's roster for a date' and enumerates specific fields (roster slot, starting status, injury status, eligible positions). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning alternative tools for stats.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to see who is on the team and who is starting or benched') and provides alternative tools for stats (get_roster_stats, analyze_roster_stats). Also notes defaults to configured team and today's date.

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