Get MFL league settings and teams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the defaulting behavior for omitted league/season, which the schema itself already states, so incremental value is limited.

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-loads the returned payload in the first sentence, then usage, then an arg list. No filler sentences; each element carries information.

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 takes on the burden of describing return content and does so concretely (franchises, roster size, taxi/IR, lineup requirements, weeks). Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the alias/name/ID options and the enum for response_format. The description's restatement adds nothing beyond that; 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 (Get) and resource (league settings and teams) and enumerates the payload: name, franchises with ID/team name/owner/division, roster size, taxi/IR slots, lineup requirements, season weeks. An agent can distinguish it from mfl_get_roster or mfl_list_leagues without opening the schema.

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 names two use cases: mapping franchise IDs to team names, and answering league-rule/lineup questions. Clear context for when to reach for this tool, but it does not name a competing sibling (e.g. mfl_get_roster for per-player rosters) to rule out.

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