my_roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the G-score reflects strategy punts unless `punts` is supplied, and the default day is today ET. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or response shape, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is adequate.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the roster contents, followed by parameter clarifications. The first sentence is a dense run-on that packs many deliverables, but every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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?

With two optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers inputs and general output contents. However, it does not state what each roster slot entry contains or whether 'status' means injury status; for a data-returning tool with no output schema, that leaves some ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate—and it does. It explains `day` is an ET date in YYYY-MM-DD defaulting to today ET, and `punts` is a comma-separated category list like 'FT%,TO' or '' for none, with the default being applied strategy punts. Both parameters are given meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names the resource ('my roster') and lists the data it returns: 'slots, status, games today / left this week, G-score value, per-category G-scores and per-game projections.' This is a data-dump description rather than a crisp verb+resource statement, so the actual operation (retrieve roster) is implied rather than stated. It is distinct enough from siblings like rankings or free_agents, but doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as optimize_lineup, lineup_steps, or evaluate_add_drop, which all touch roster data. The parenthetical about punts implies a use case but never states when-not or which sibling handles related tasks.

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