get_free_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses authentication needs for private leagues (espn_s2, swid), environment variable fallbacks, and default behavior for size. It also states the return type (list of dictionaries). This is useful context beyond the schema, though it does not detail error conditions or rate limits.

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 appropriately structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value, covering all parameters and return type without fluff. The use of bullets or separators would improve scannability, but it remains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple env vars, optional auth) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers all parameters, defaults, return structure, and mentions max size, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully compensates by explaining each of the 6 parameters: league_id, year, size, position_id, espn_s2, and swid, including optionality and env var usage. This is comprehensive and clear.

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 it retrieves free agents/waiver wire players from an ESPN Fantasy Basketball league, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'get_available_players', which could overlap in functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use for free agent pickups' or 'use get_available_players for a broader query'. The parameter defaults are noted, but usage context is absent.

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