Get undrafted players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behaviors: data source (cached dictionary minus picks), sorting (search_rank), and default filters. However, it does not mention cache staleness, potential pagination, or that limit defaults to 40, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

Two dense sentences provide high-value information without filler. Every sentence adds functional detail: data source, computation, sorting, and default exclusions.

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 list-with-filters tool with no output schema, the description explains the core behavior, default filtering, and sorting. It lacks explicit statement about the return type (player list) but that is inferable. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 67%, so some parameters (limit, draft_id) lack schema descriptions. The description does not explain limit or draft_id, but it does clarify the meaning of include_idp and include_unranked via defaults. It partially compensates but does not fully cover the undocumented parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the action: fetching players not yet drafted in this draft, computed from the cached dictionary minus picks. It adds sorting and default filtering details that distinguish it from siblings like get_draft_picks or get_trending_players.

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 specifies default behavior (fantasy positions only, drops unranked players) and context (during a draft, available players). It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no alternative routing is ambiguous enough to require exclusion.

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