Get MFL live scoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results include players who have not yet played and remaining game time, which tells the agent the payload is partially-projected live data, not a settled result.

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 the purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Args list. The Args block is largely redundant with the schema but is short and harmless; nothing is padded or buried.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, no required parameters, and no output schema, the definition supplies enough to invoke correctly: scope, defaults for all four optional params, and the markdown/json output switch. Only the routing rationale versus similarly named siblings 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The Args block essentially restates week/league/season/response_format without adding format, constraint, or resolution detail beyond it, so the 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 (live/final fantasy scores for every matchup in a week), plus notable scope detail (players yet to play, game time remaining). It distinguishes the live-scoring nature from statically-oriented siblings like mfl_get_player_scores, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives implied context (omit week for the current week, omit league/season for defaults) but never states when to prefer this over mfl_get_player_scores or mfl_get_standings. Usage is inferable from the purpose rather than spelled out.

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