Interpreted league profile

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it produces interpreted, human-readable summaries rather than raw data, and provides strategic implications. The detailed output categories give the agent a clear picture of what the tool will return without an output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the strongest guidance ('THE tool to call before giving any fantasy advice') and packed with specific output details. The length is justified by the tool's importance and the absence of an output schema; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully inventories what the agent will learn: scoring rules, lineup construction, roster sizes, waiver/FAAB mechanics, trade deadline, playoff structure, and strategic implications. Input defaults are covered by the schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation 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% coverage with clear descriptions for both year and leagueId, including default behavior when omitted. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?

States a specific, meaningful action: translating raw ESPN league settings into plain English. The description enumerates what is included (scoring format, lineup, FLEX/superflex, waivers, trade deadline, playoffs, implications), making it clearly distinct from siblings like get_league or get_settings.

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 says to call this first before giving fantasy advice and warns against assuming a standard league. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or say when to choose them instead, leaving a small amount of inference to the agent.

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