list_available_players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that Sleeper's search rank provides only stable ordering until independent valuations exist, which prevents misinterpretation. However, it does not clarify whether league_id or draft_id is required for meaningful results, nor what happens when neither is supplied, leaving a transparency gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent note about search rank is relevant and adds value without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is 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?

For a simple lookup tool, the description covers the core purpose and one behavioral nuance, but the optional parameters create ambiguity: calling with no league_id or draft_id might return an overly broad list, and the relationship between the two filters is not explained. With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description could be more complete in guiding proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the tool filters by current rosters and draft picks, aligning with league_id and draft_id, but it does not explain the limit or positions parameters or how the filters interact. This is partial compensation: useful for basic understanding but not a full substitute for detailed parameter docs.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List active Sleeper players absent from current rosters and this league's draft picks.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from ranking or recommendation tools, which separates it from siblings like recommend_draft_pick.

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 frames this as an availability query and states it is not a ranking or recommendation, giving the agent clear when-not-to-use guidance. It implies use when a raw list is needed but does not name specific alternative tools or spell out conditions for each optional filter.

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