get_league_data

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation, so the description is not burdened with that disclosure. It adds one behavioral detail beyond the schema—the week requirement for matchups and transactions—but it does not cover other behavioral aspects like return shapes or error conditions.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the key constraint is placed in the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 annotations and the resource enum in the schema, this is minimally viable: the agent knows it is a read operation and that week is required for certain resources. However, with no output schema and no guidance on what is returned for each resource or how league_id is structured, the description leaves notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning only for the 'week' parameter by noting it is required for matchups and transactions, and it loosely implies that 'resource' contains league data. It leaves 'league_id' and most resource enum values semantically unexplained, which is insufficient for three parameters.

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 starts with a clear action verb, 'Read', and names the object as 'a configured league resource' plus a distinguishing hint, 'with player names'. This makes the tool's basic purpose clear and separates it from write-oriented tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from specialized siblings like get_matchup or get_standings.

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 one useful condition: 'Matchups and transactions require a week,' which tells the agent when a parameter is mandatory. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the many sibling alternatives, so usage is implied rather than directly specified.

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