Sleeper trade context

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds useful context by disclosing that pending private trade offers are not available through the official API and must be pasted or described. It also states what content the tool returns, adding value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and contents, team identification, and an important API limitation. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, with no redundant filler.

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 data-retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, output scope, identification options, and the key limitation around private offers. It does not describe error behavior or exactly how pick_years controls future pick inventories, but annotations and schema cover the core safety profile.

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 50%, with league_id and team_queries described. The description adds meaning by explaining team identification via roster ID, owner name, username, or team name and mentions future pick inventories, which maps to pick_years. However, username and pick_years semantics remain partially inferred rather than explicitly defined.

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 and resource: 'Get focused trade-analysis context for selected teams,' then enumerates what it returns (full rosters, league rules, records, future pick inventories). This clearly separates it from sibling roster/league tools like sleeper_all_rosters and sleeper_league_overview.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: for focused trade analysis on selected teams, identified by multiple key types. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route to it appropriately.

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