get_free_agents

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

The description only states 'This is read-only,' which is a minimal behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether it filters or sorts results, or any side effects. Since there are no annotations to carry this burden, the description falls short of fully disclosing behavioral expectations.

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 and to the point. It consists of two short sentences with no redundant information. The structure is clean and easily parsed.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks contextual details about what results are returned and how parameters affect the search. It does not mention sorting, filtering, pagination, or any other behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters), the description is incomplete for a user to fully understand its capabilities.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify any of them. Parameters like league_id, season, limit, and positions are left entirely unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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's function: 'Find available free agents and waiver players.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and identifies the resource (free agents/waiver players). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_league_snapshot and get_team_roster, which have different scopes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios or conditions that would make this tool preferable to get_league_snapshot or get_team_roster. The 'read-only' note is implicit but does not help in tool selection.

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