get_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing what the response contains: 'added and dropped player IDs, involved roster IDs, status, timestamps, FAAB bids or transfers, and traded draft picks.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence states the primary purpose, and the second packs result fields and usage context efficiently. The description is front-loaded and 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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result content, usage scenarios, and a prerequisite. It does not describe exact response structure or error handling, but given the annotations and the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with both league_id and round already explained in the input schema, including the note that round is an NFL week for football. The description reiterates the league_id source but adds no new parameter semantics; thus a 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 opens with 'Return a league's free-agent moves, waivers, and trades for a round,' which is a specific verb (return) and resource (transactions). It also lists the exact result fields, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_league_traded_picks, which focuses only on traded picks.

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 states 'Obtain league_id from get_user_leagues' as a prerequisite and gives concrete use cases: 'waiver reports, trade histories, FAAB analysis, and weekly transaction summaries.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it stops short of 5.

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