analyze_trade_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that espn_s2 and swid are for private leagues and describes the return value, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention behavior on errors, invalid IDs, or authentication failures. The description adds some context but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise, with no fluff, and each parameter is listed on its own line with clear semantics. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and high-level return value (dictionary with trade analysis, recommendation, and category impact). It could provide more detail on the returned structure or possible failure modes, but it is sufficiently complete for the complexity.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: your_player_ids (players you trade away), their_player_ids (players you receive), league_id (optional with env var), year (optional with env var and default), and authentication cookies. It also clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond type information, which is essential for correct use.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Analyze a trade proposal') and resource (trade proposal). It distinguishes from sibling tools: none of the siblings specifically analyze trade proposals, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when analyzing a trade proposal) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or state exclusions. No mention of scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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