Sleeper draft board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing that the board can be live or completed and what the returned data includes, which is valuable in the absence of an output schema.

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 filler: the first states capabilities, the second states the parameter-based usage model. Both sentences earn their place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the return contents well and the annotations cover safety, but it leaves important invocation details unclear: the role of `draft_season`, what happens if both `league_id` and `draft_id` are supplied, and whether at least one is required. These gaps matter for an agent selecting parameters.

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 67%: `league_id` and `draft_season` have schema descriptions, while `draft_id` does not. The description adds meaning by explaining the league-ID-versus-draft-ID relationship, but it does not explain how `draft_season` interacts with either parameter, leaving a meaningful ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('draft board'), then enumerates the exact content returned: resolved player picks, draft order, and traded draft slots. This is specific enough to distinguish from the listed siblings, none of which target draft-board data.

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 explicit input-selection guidance: use a league ID for the newest draft or a draft ID for a specific draft. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or mention the `draft_season` parameter, but the primary usage context is clear.

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