Weekly matchups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details: 'live projections' implies real-time data, and 'with the configured team's matchup marked mine' discloses an output behavior. It also clarifies team id semantics without contradicting 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 sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and scoping are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a necessary clarification about ESPN team ids, all in under 30 words.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough for a one-parameter read tool. It explains what is checked and the special marker; potential omissions like pagination or error handling are minor given the output schema.

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% for the only parameter, ``week``, which already explains the default and type. The description's mention of team ids refers to the configured team, not the parameter, so it adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool checks scores and live projections for a week and marks the configured team's matchup. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_roster and get_league by focusing on weekly matchups with a specific output marker.

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 provides clear context—use for weekly scores/projections with the configured team highlighted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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