Get Rosters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral scoping (team_id limits to one team) and enumerates the returned fields (position, injury status, lock state, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect. This exceeds the minimal baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scoping, the second succinctly lists the player fields. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool is a simple read operation with all parameters optional and fully described in the schema, an output schema is present (so return format is covered), and annotations cover safety. The description adds the team_id scoping and field list, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. No critical gaps exist.

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 100% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to team_id by clarifying that it limits results to one team, which is a meaningful semantic beyond the schema's 'Limit to one team id.' The other parameters (sport, season, league_id) are already well-described in the schema, so the description's additional value is moderate but sufficient to warrant a 4.

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 clearly states the tool returns rosters, with an explicit scoping condition ('or one team's roster if team_id is given'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_teams (teams vs. rosters) and get_free_agents (free agents vs. rosters) by naming the specific resource (rosters) and the player fields included. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 a usage condition for team_id ('if team_id is given') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_teams or get_free_agents, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit, so it falls short of providing clear alternative routing.

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