Team roster for a week

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds context about the returned data fields and required parameters, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth needs, rate limits, or result envelope.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff: the first states the core function and data contents, the second states use context and hard requirements. Everything 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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the key categories of returned data: player names, positions, lineup slot, eligible slots, pro team, injury status, and ownership. It also clarifies the starting-point use case. Minor gaps like the exact response envelope are not essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description's statement that 'Both teamId and week are required' reinforces the schema but does not add meaning beyond it.

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 and resource: 'Get one team's roster for a specific week' and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_teams (which returns teams) and get_free_agents (which returns available players).

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 gives clear context: 'starting point for start/sit, trade and roster-construction questions'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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