get_rosters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the response shape (starters/bench, names resolved), which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about permissions or auth requirements, rate limiting, behavior for invalid or empty leagues, or whether unrostered players are included.

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 key scope statement is front-loaded and the supporting detail follows in two short sentences with no filler. The Args block is brief and only mildly redundant with the surrounding 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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, what remains in the description is largely sufficient; the return shape is described and the parameter format clarified. Missing edge-case behavior (unknown league_id, empty rosters) is the only notable gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'League Id' with type string, so the description's note that it is a Sleeper league ID in numeric-string form is real added meaning. It stops short of an example value or where to obtain the ID.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Fetch all rosters in a league') plus the qualifier that players are resolved to names, and a breakdown of the returned shape (starters with slot assignments, bench). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_league or get_draft, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related data. The only implicit guidance is that a league_id is required, and the reader must infer that get_league is the place to look for that ID.

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