Get confirmed lineups

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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds useful behavioral context: lineups are 'confirmed / projected' (potentially not final), it returns data for 'every game,' and includes a detailed return JSON structure. This goes beyond the structured annotations, although it doesn't discuss rate limits or empty-game scenarios.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then the plan availability, then args and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff. The return JSON is compact and illustrative.

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?

Given only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return shape in detail, including nested lineups and meta fields. It covers the necessary input and output. Minor gaps: no stated behavior for dates with no games, but this is not critical for such a simple tool.

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 100%, with descriptions for both date and league. The description's 'Args' line effectively restates the schema (league enum and date format) without adding new meaning. It does tie the parameters to the tool's purpose ('for every game on a given league + date'), but this is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: 'Confirmed / projected starting lineups for every game on a given league + date, split into home and away rosters.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (lineups), and the scope (league + date, home/away) distinguishes it from siblings like projections or lines.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for starting lineups on a specific league and date. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope is unambiguous and the sibling tool names further clarify distinctions. The plan availability note also adds context.

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