get_pending_transactions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States return includes all statuses and trade directions, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or authentication requirements. Adequate for a non-destructive operation.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Each sentence serves a purpose: first defines scope and content, second clarifies trade specifics.

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 output schema present and only 3 optional params, description covers what is returned (waivers, trades, statuses, both sides). Sufficient for agent to understand usage.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, and description adds context: team_id omitted returns league-wide, league_id defaults to configured league, season_year defaults to current year. Adds value beyond 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?

Description specifies verb 'get', resource 'pending transactions' (waiver claims and trade proposals), and includes status categories. Clearly distinguishes from action-oriented siblings like claim_waiver, propose_trade, etc.

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?

Purpose is clear for viewing pending transactions, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Implicit differentiation from sibling tools that perform actions (add, drop, propose). Could mention that to see detailed info, but not required.

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