My Sleeper roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the roster is 'live', resolved to player names, grouped into specific roster slots, and includes draft-pick ownership. This gives the agent a clear expectation of what the tool returns.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then packs all relevant output details. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of conveying the result shape and primary parameter. However, it leaves the optional username parameter unexplained and does not address edge cases or when a caller should look elsewhere, so the context is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Only league_id has a schema description, and the tool description adds no explanation of the optional username parameter. The phrase 'configured user' hints at a default user, but it does not clarify whether supplying username overrides the configured user or how it interacts with the lookup. This is a real gap for an agent deciding whether to pass username.

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'), names the resource ('configured user's live roster'), and scopes it to one league. It further specifies output details (resolved player names, grouping into starters/bench/reserve/taxi/keepers, draft-pick ownership), which clearly distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like sleeper_all_rosters.

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 phrase 'configured user' and 'one league' imply when this tool is appropriate, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives such as sleeper_all_rosters or sleeper_league_overview. An agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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