Get My Team

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

With no annotations, the description provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the basic 'return' action: roster row schema, slot semantics for starters vs BENCH/IR, ordering, and season-to-date scope. It does not mention edge cases like an empty team or auth requirements, but for a read-only retrieval this is strong transparency.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences pack in every useful detail about the output without repetition or filler. Every sentence earns its place by providing information an agent needs to interpret the response.

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 no-argument tool, the description is contextually complete: it fully documents the return payload, roster field semantics, row ordering, and season scope. An agent can correctly select the tool and interpret the result without needing to open any sibling tool schemas.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly focuses on output 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the user's fantasy team') and enumerates the contents (record, points, roster). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_matchup and get_free_agents, and even references get_player as a follow-up, making the tool's scope clear.

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 clearly frames this as the tool for the current user's own team with season-to-date stats, making its use case apparent from context. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative conditions, but no explicit exclusions are needed given the zero-parameter scope and distinct sibling purposes.

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