Setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool saves and verifies settings via save_settings and instructs the agent to ask the user to fill the card rather than paste cookies. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool has no return value or that it triggers a UI interaction, though these are implied. Overall, it is fairly transparent but not exhaustive.

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 is well-structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by usage triggers, content details, and a fallback. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence earns its place—no fluff. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is highly complete. It covers when to use, what the tool does, what the agent should tell the user, and how to handle clients without card support. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds useful context about the cookie inputs (espn_s2 and SWID) that the user must provide, which enriches the agent's understanding even though there are no formal parameters. Baseline for zero-param is 4, and the description meets that adequately.

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 states the tool shows an in-chat setup card for connecting the user's ESPN league. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and a concrete resource, distinguishing it from sibling data-query tools like get_standings or get_player. It is immediately clear this is a configuration action.

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 explicitly defines when to call: when any tool reports the league is not configured, or when the user asks to set up, connect, update, or change their league/cookies. It also provides a clear alternative instruction for clients that cannot display cards, which prevents misuse.

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