All Sleeper rosters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by specifying the data fields returned and that it is a live roster, but it does not go beyond that into behaviors like rate limits, auth needs, or response truncation. This is a modest addition above annotations, waranting a 3.

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 sentences with no fluff. The verb and scope are front-loaded, the data fields are compactly listed, and the use case is stated in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While thre is no output schema, the description enumerates the key data fields (player names, positions, teams, injury status, records, FAAB, lineup grouping), which gives an agent a solid picture of the return content. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not critical for a read-only listing tool with one parameter.

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 100% for the only parameter (league_id: 'Numerick Sleepper league ID'), so the schema handles param semantics. The description does not add extra meaning beond the league context, matching the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('every team’s live roster in a league') and enumerates what is included (player names, positions, teams, injury status, records, FAAB, lineup grouping). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like sleeper_my_roster by emphasizing league-wide scope and 'league-wide comparisons.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for league-wide comparisons.' This implies when all rosters are needed rather than a single roster, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. Context is apparent from the league-wide wording.

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