Free agents and waiver wire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about result contents (projected and recent points) but does not disclose anything beyond that; with annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: first defines the result, second gives usage scenarios, third hints at parameters. Front-loaded with the core function and no filler.

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 read-only list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, why an agent would use it, and how to adjust the query. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it omits output shape details that the schema does not provide.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description adds a small amount of extra guidance ('raise size to see deeper options' and 'filter by position'), but it does not substantially compensate beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List unrostered players available on the waiver wire or as free agents'. The scoping word 'unrostered' clearly distinguishes it from roster-related siblings like get_roster, and the inclusion of projected/recent points adds concrete behavioral specificity.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: for 'who should I pick up', streaming defense/kicker, and finding replacements for injured starters. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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