get_sport_state

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 fully covered. The description adds the specific list of returned fields for NFL, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., error behavior, rate limits). Since the annotations already cover the safety aspects, this is an adequate but not exceptional contribution.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second details the NFL fields and provides usage guidance. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the simple schema (one parameter), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It fully specifies the NFL return contents and gives usage context. The only small gap is that it does not describe what is returned for non-NFL sports (e.g., baseball or basketball), but the default 'nfl' and the explicit NFL field list make this a minor omission. Overall, an agent has everything needed to correctly call and interpret the tool for its primary use.

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 single 'sport' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and description. The tool description does not add any new meaning or syntax for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not compensate further. Baseline 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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('Sleeper's current week and season state for a sport'), and lists the exact fields for NFL. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that fetch specific data like matchups or rosters, making it easy for an agent to identify this as the state-preamble tool.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this before week- or season-scoped calls when the current values are unknown', and even provides concrete examples (matchups, transactions, user leagues, drafts). This gives an agent clear contextual guidance and effectively differentiates it from the siblings that depend on this state information.

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