Draft results

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'every draft pick' with specified fields, which is consistent with the annotations. It doesn't add extra behavioral context like pagination or performance, but for a read-only query tool, the annotations plus the field list are sufficient.

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 two sentences, with the core function front-loaded and the usage guidance appended. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all the fields returned (round, pick number, player, drafting team, auction bid amount, keeper status), giving the agent a clear expectation of the response. The tool is simple (two optional parameters, both documented in schema), and the description covers purpose and usage fully. 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (year and leagueId), including guidance to omit them to use server defaults. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details, so it relies on the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves draft picks with a specific set of fields (round, pick number, player, drafting team, auction bid amount, keeper status). It also names concrete use cases (draft grades, steal/bust analysis, trade context), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_roster or get_teams that serve different purposes.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for draft grades, steal/bust analysis, and to see how much a manager originally invested in a player being discussed in a trade'), giving the agent clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough to guide selection.

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