Get MFL league schedule and results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes that scores/results apply to completed weeks, but it contradicts the schema by saying omitting week returns the full season (schema says current week), which undermines confidence.

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 front-loaded and readable, but the Args block largely duplicates a schema that already has 100% description coverage, adding length without new 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 should carry more of the return-value burden; it only says scores and results for completed weeks and mentions a markdown/json format. The contradictory week-omission guidance leaves a key behavior unclear.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description actively conflicts with the schema on the week parameter ('Omit for the full season' vs schema's 'Omit for the current week'). That contradiction makes it worse than simply repeating the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get fantasy matchups) and scopes it by week and completed-week results. It is clearly distinct from siblings like standings, roster, or player scores, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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 gives per-parameter usage hints (omit week for full season, franchise accepts 'mine'/ID/name, response_format default) but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to tools like mfl_get_live_scoring. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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