League Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the exact output format, including the line structure and markers, which goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what the tool returns. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that packs all essential information: the output format, the file reference, and the components. It is concise with no filler, though it could be slightly restructured to front-load the action (e.g., 'Generates a league snapshot in...') for even quicker comprehension.

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 description fully specifies the output format, listing all line types and markers. All three parameters are optional with defaults, so there are no ambiguous inputs. The tool's read-only nature is covered by annotations, and the output is thoroughly described, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so each parameter (sport, season, league_id) is already documented with defaults and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the resource (the league) and the output format (line-oriented text with specific rows and markers). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_teams or get_league, which return structured data, by emphasizing the exact text format used for diffing. The title 'League Snapshot' reinforces the purpose.

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 usage for diffing via the reference to 'frontoffice-manager's tools/diff-snapshot.mjs', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_league or get_rosters. It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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