Box scores with lineups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: requesting a week beyond the league's current_week returns an error, and includeLineup toggles player-level detail. It doesn't describe the response structure, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient beyond the 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?

Three sentences with no filler: what it returns, when to use it, and a critical failure condition. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the key return fields and the includeLineup behavior, plus the error condition and prerequisite get_league. It doesn't specify the exact JSON structure or limits, but for a read-only box-score tool the agent has enough to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the week constraint ('later than the league current_week fails') and explicitly tying includeLineup to the full player-level breakdown. This adds practical meaning that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'box scores for a week', then enumerates the exact fields returned (actual/projected team scores, player points, projected points, slot, opponent, bye-week flag, injury status). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be 'the richest tool here', so an agent can tell it apart from get_scoreboard or get_matchups without opening schemas.

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 lists when to use it: 'start/sit review, bench blunders, over/under-performance versus projection and weekly recaps.' It also gives a clear exclusion and prerequisite: requesting a later week fails, so 'check get_league first.' This tells the agent exactly when to call and what to do instead.

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