get_league

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return payload (status, season, scoring settings, roster positions, draft ID, league name, avatar, roster count), giving the agent a concrete picture of what to expect. It does not state any side effects beyond what annotations imply, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Three focused sentences: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. Ideal density for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only metadata tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: how to obtain the ID, what data it returns, and when to call it. The sibling set is large, but the description clearly scopes this tool to league configuration, leaving no ambiguity.

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%; the parameter league_id is well-documented in the schema with source instructions. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'Obtain league_id from get_user_leagues,' but adds no new semantic beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the full burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch configuration and metadata for one Sleeper league.' It further enumerates the returned fields (status, season, scoring settings, etc.), making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like get_league_rosters or get_league_matchups, which have different scopes.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this before interpreting scores, roster slots, league status, or chaining through previous seasons.' Also points to the correct source for the league_id ('Obtain league_id from get_user_leagues'), which routes the agent to the right prerequisite tool. This is clear and actionable.

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