sleeper_trending_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. The two-word description gives no insight into what 'trending' means, whether the tool is read-only, or any side effects. Important behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or data freshness are omitted.

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 extremely concise at five words. It delivers the core purpose without any fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It could be restructured to include more information while remaining efficient.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to define 'trending', explain parameter usage, or describe the output format. This forces the agent to guess or potentially misuse the 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 description coverage is only 25% (only the 'type' parameter has a description). The overall description does not explain the parameters: 'sport' (possible values?), 'lookback_hours' (range?), 'limit' (max?). This leaves the agent guessing about valid inputs, especially since none are required.

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 'Get trending players on Sleeper.' clearly states the action (get) and resource (trending players). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like sleeper_players (which likely gets all players) or league-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other potential trending tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred. The agent is left without any decision support regarding tool selection.

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