get_team_roster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature, which is a meaningful safety signal. However, it adds nothing else — no mention of data volume, normalization specifics, or failure behavior. The output schema covers return format, so the read-only disclosure is the main contribution.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the read-only qualifier earns its place as behavioral disclosure. Could be slightly more informative without hurting conciseness, but as written it is 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is thin. The output schema documents returns, which helps, and parameter names are intuitive, but there is no guidance on parameter semantics or sibling differentiation. An agent would need to infer scoring_period_id's meaning and when this tool is preferable to the siblings.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The parameter names (league_id, season, team_id, scoring_period_id) are self-explanatory, which mitigates the gap somewhat, but scoring_period_id's role and the semantics of 'normalized' roster are left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one team's normalized roster and record'), with scope clarified by 'one team's.' The 'normalized' qualifier adds specificity about the data transformation. It distinguishes from siblings by scope (a single team's data vs a league snapshot or free agents), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 usage context is implied by the description — an agent can infer this is for retrieving a specific team's roster rather than league-wide or free-agent data. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives, so the agent must reason from the sibling tool names.

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