Get League Settings

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. The description adds value by revealing the breadth of returned settings, including the current scoring/matchup period, beyond what the annotations encode. No behaviors contradict 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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the settings in a compact, scannable colon list with no filler. Every item 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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and complete parameter schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its safety profile. A slightly more explicit 'returns/retrieves' verb would make it fully self-contained, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, defaults, and an enum for sport. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Title and first words identify the resource as league settings, and the description enumerates concrete setting categories (scoring, roster slots, waivers, schedule, trades, draft/keepers, periods). This separates it from sibling roster/team/matchup tools, though the description itself relies on the 'Get League Settings' title for the action verb.

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 category list makes it plain that this tool is for league-level configuration data, offering implied guidance for when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer selection from the sibling names rather than explicit guidance.

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