Get MFL draft results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by noting that unmade picks appear as 'on the clock / pending' and that the tool covers both rookie and startup drafts — output nuances not captured by 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a compact Args block. Two sentences and a short list, each carrying distinct information with 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the pending-pick state. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the absence of explicit alternative-tool routing keeps it from a 5.

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 four parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates them plus the past-draft hint, adding marginal meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the league's draft results for a season') and enumerates the returned fields (round, pick, picking team, player). The 'rookie/startup draft' qualifier and the 'on the clock / pending' behavior clearly separate it from siblings like mfl_get_future_draft_picks.

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?

It hints at usage ('Use season to look at a past draft') and documents the franchise shorthand, but it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mfl_get_future_draft_picks or mfl_get_players, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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