get_league_traded_picks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the return field details (season, round, original roster, previous owner, current owner) and the league_id prerequisite, which is useful but does not describe any additional behavioral quirks like pagination or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description adequately supplements without needing extensive disclosure.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and supporting details (fields, use cases) in the second. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence contributes value. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description clearly lists the fields returned per item, explains how to obtain the required league_id, and provides use cases. The tool has a single parameter and is a read-only list operation; the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter (league_id) with a description that matches the description text ('obtained from get_user_leagues'). The description reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and the resource ('all current and future draft picks traded in a league'), and specifies the scope (league-level) and the included fields. It is distinct from siblings like get_draft_traded_picks by focusing on league-wide trading history, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit context on when to use the tool, including a prerequisite ('Obtain league_id from get_user_leagues') and a list of use cases (asset inventories, ownership, trade evaluation). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar ones.

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