get_user_drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the response contains (draft IDs, league IDs, draft type, status, settings, order, timing, metadata), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations; the description aligns with the read-only, idempotent nature.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the primary function, the second lists return contents, and the third gives dependency and usage context. It 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 simple list tool with three parameters, all schema-documented, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, how to obtain required inputs, and when to use it. It does not mention pagination or potential limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of rich annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema: it explains that user_id comes from get_user and that season can be resolved via get_sport_state. This provides practical guidance on how to fill the parameters correctly, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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 ('List') and resource ('a user's Sleeper drafts') and clearly scopes it by sport and season. It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_league_drafts or get_draft to differentiate, though the 'user's drafts' phrasing inherently distinguishes it from league-scoped alternatives.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: how to obtain the required user_id via get_user, and how to handle an unknown season via get_sport_state. It also states the intended use case ('discover draft IDs for draft-board and pick analysis'). It does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like get_league_drafts, but the dependency hints are actionable and sufficient for most agents.

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