League Info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not contradict and adds no additional behavioral context. The description does not disclose any extra traits beyond the annotations, but it also does not mislead. Given the annotations cover the safety and data volatility profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value; no irrelevant information is present. It is optimally concise for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, an output schema (assumed present), and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but not what the returned data looks like or any usage caveats. The output schema may cover return structure, but the description could be enriched with a brief note on the scope of 'detailed information' (e.g., includes settings, member count).

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 0%, but the description provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. It only mentions 'a specific league' as the target, which weakly implies the league_id parameter identifies the league. No details on format, source, or constraints are given, leaving the agent with little to infer about how to provide the parameter correctly.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific league' clearly states the verb (get), resource (league), and specificity (specific league). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_nfl_state or get_user_leagues, which target different data. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 implies that this tool is used when details about a particular league are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_league_rosters or get_league_users. No exclusions or contextual cues are given, leaving some ambiguity for complex decision-making.

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