Team roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data volatility. The description adds useful content details (lineup, injuries, projections, ESPN id conventions including negative D/ST ids) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits, which are not expected for a simple read-only tool.

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 compact at three sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The final sentence about player ids is slightly tangential to invocation but still short and useful for interpreting output, so no significant waste.

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 both optional parameters fully documented in the schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical information 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%, with both week and teamId already documented including defaults. The description repeats the teamId default but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a team's lineup, eligible slots, injuries, opponents and projections'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling read tools like get_free_agents or get_matchups. The 'before making moves' clause reinforces its role in the fantasy workflow.

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 provides a clear usage context ('before making moves'), suggesting when to call it relative to action tools like add_player or set_lineup. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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