Get League Settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'returns settings' by explaining important value semantics: scoring.rules maps stat names to points, unmapped ESPN ids appear as stat_<id>, FAAB budget is present when applicable, and trades.deadline is a UTC date. It does not discuss read-only status or data freshness, but the tool name and lack of parameters make those less critical.

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 opens with a compact summary of the returned categories, then uses each subsequent sentence to add meaningful detail about how to interpret the fields. It is dense but every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 zero-parameter settings retrieval tool, this is complete: it explains the major output sections, clarifies edge cases in scoring and trade data, and tells the agent when to call it. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to re-describe raw return shapes, and the description adds the interpretive context the schema likely cannot.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output shape and interpretation rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 identifies the resource (league settings) and enumerates its contents: scoring, roster construction, schedule/playoffs, waivers, and trades. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like whoami, get_my_team, and get_free_agents because it is the only tool focused on league-wide rules.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Call this before start/sit, pickup, or trade advice.' It references get_player for stat-name conventions, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for other tasks, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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