get_league_drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect concerns. The description adds useful behavioral details: drafts are returned newest first, and it lists the specific fields included (draft_id, type, status, settings, season, timing, draft-order metadata). It also discloses the possibility of multiple drafts per league. No contradiction with 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 four sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences add distinct value: ordering and fields, the multiple-drafts caveat, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return field highlights, ordering, and usage guidance. It could optionally mention pagination or response limits, but for a tool of this complexity it is adequately complete.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the league_id parameter. The description reiterates its origin ('Obtain league_id from get_user_leagues') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies when the schema covers parameters completely.

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 specifies the action ('List every draft') and the resource ('associated with a Sleeper league'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_draft (single draft) and get_user_drafts (user-scoped) by focusing on league-scoped enumeration.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to obtain the correct draft before requesting picks, and how to acquire the required league_id ('Obtain league_id from get_user_leagues'). It also notes that dynasty leagues may have multiple drafts, implying this is the way to enumerate them. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context is sufficient.

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