get_league

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose concrete return semantics — non-zero scoring values only, lineup positions, bench/IR sizes, and draft_id — which tell the agent what will and won't be present. "Fetch" implies a read-only operation, though the description says nothing about failure modes for an invalid or unknown league_id.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact return summary and a short Args block. Every line is short and readable with no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the somewhat lengthy return-value enumeration is partially redundant, but it usefully flags the "non-zero values only" filtering that a schema alone may not communicate. Combined with the explicit league_id format, the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, missing only error-condition guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies league_id as a Sleeper league ID and specifies the numeric-string format, which the bare schema (type string, title "League Id") does not convey. With only one parameter there is little more to document.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a Sleeper league's settings") and immediately enumerates the data returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_rosters or get_draft, but the resource boundary is clear from the wording.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the entry point for league-level metadata, distinct from roster/draft tools. There is no explicit "use this when..." statement, no mention of what to call first (e.g., to obtain a league_id) and no exclusions or alternatives named.

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