Trending adds/drops

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the data is a rough signal and explicitly not rankings/ADP, which sets expectations about data quality. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects such as data freshness, rate limits, or return format.

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 very concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core functionality. The caveat about being a rough signal immediately follows the primary purpose. Every word adds information.

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 simple tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose but lacks guidance on parameter usage, expected return shape, and when to choose this tool over siblings. The tool is easy to understand but incompletely documented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'added or dropped' and 'lookback window', which indirectly hints at the 'type' and 'lookback_hours' parameters, but does not explicitly describe any of the three parameters or their constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's function: retrieving Sleeper's trending players (most added or dropped) within a lookback window. It explicitly differentiates the tool from rankings or ADP, which helps distinguish it from potential alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'Rough signal only' implies it is not a precise source, but there is no mention of sibling tools or specific use cases.

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