Get draft metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details what fields are returned, which is helpful, but it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (likely safe), what happens if no draft exists, or any rate limits or side effects. It adds reasonable contextual value but leaves some behavioral gaps given no 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 front-loads the main resource (draft settings) and enumerates the specific fields returned. Every clause adds information, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job of listing the return contents and clarifying the draft_id vs league_id fallback behavior. Minor missing context includes the default behavior when neither parameter is provided (likely 400 or error) and whether the operation is read-only, but overall it is fairly complete for a metadata retrieval tool.

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 50%: draft_id is well-documented, but league_id has no description. The description explains that league_id targets the league's most recent draft implicitly, but doesn't add much beyond the schema for draft_id. The tool description does clarify the relationship between draft_id and league_id, which helps, but league_id semantics remain thin.

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 retrieves draft settings, lists specific fields (draft type, status, team count, rounds, third-round-reversal flag, slot->roster->owner mapping, required starting slots), and mentions an explicit draft_id or league default. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_draft_picks by focusing on metadata and settings, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 context: it returns draft settings for a league's most recent draft or a specific draft via draft_id. It does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like get_league or get_draft_picks, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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