League settings and scoring rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that player value depends on these rules, which is useful context but not a behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the list of settings, and the second sentence adds a clear usage directive. No redundant information, every word 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 simple optional parameters, high schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it explains what data is returned and why it matters. No missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (year and leagueId) documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'league settings' and enumerates the exact contents: scoring format, roster/lineup counts, playoff details, waiver/FAAB rules, keeper settings, and divisions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_league or get_teams by specifying the scope.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'read them before ranking, trading or start/sit advice.' This provides clear context for when this tool is relevant, though it doesn't mention any alternative tools or exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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