get_draft_traded_picks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific fields returned and the per-draft scoping, which is meaningful context beyond annotations. It does not disclose potential errors or edge cases, but given read-only and idempotent nature, that is acceptable.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output fields, parameter sourcing, and complementary tool usage. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary function.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields, covering that gap. It addresses the single parameter, provides a composite workflow with siblings, and the annotations handle safety. Nothing critical is missing 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 covers 100% of the parameter description, but the description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain draft_id ('Obtain draft_id from get_league_drafts'), which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 and aids correct invocation.

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?

States a precise verb ('Return traded-pick ownership') and a specific scope ('for one Sleeper draft'), distinguishing it from the sibling get_league_traded_picks. Also lists the returned fields (season, round, original roster, previous owner, current owner), which clarifies what the tool does beyond just the name.

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?

Provides clear context: instructs to obtain draft_id from get_league_drafts and to combine with get_draft and get_draft_picks to reconstruct a draft board. It implies the scope difference from get_league_traded_picks by saying 'specifically for one Sleeper draft,' but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools. Could be improved by naming the sibling it differentiates from.

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