Free agents and waivers

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, especially that player ids are ESPN ids and that D/ST ids can be negative, which is a non-obvious gotcha. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical ID note is included without bloating the text.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, filtering/sorting options, and an important ID quirk. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool relates to search_players, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct 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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for positions and sortBy ('optional position filters and ownership or projection sorting'), and week has a schema description, but limit receives no explanation in either place and the percentChange sort option is only implicitly covered by 'ownership'.

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 states a clear action and resource: finding available players to add or claim, with optional filters and sorting. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like search_players, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself, but the resource and intent are unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when looking for players to add or claim. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_players or other alternatives, and there are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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