get_matchup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (names, injuries, projections, actual points), but it doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns data for the current week by default, how it handles missing lineups, or whether it requires authentication. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key data fields. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more explicit about the optional week parameter.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return fields (names, injuries, projections, actual points) but misses important context: the week parameter is optional and defaults to null, and the tool likely requires an authenticated league context. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not complete.

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. It mentions 'for a week' which maps to the week parameter, but it doesn't explain that week is optional and defaults to null (presumably current week). It also doesn't clarify what league_id refers to beyond the obvious. The description adds some meaning but leaves the week parameter's semantics ambiguous.

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 tool's function: showing both lineups for a week, including names, injuries, projections, and actual points. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('my lineup and my opponent's lineup'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_week_projections or get_player_week_stats_and_projections.

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 implies usage for viewing a weekly matchup, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_week_projections or get_manager_context. It also doesn't mention that week is optional or defaults to the current week, which is important context for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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