get_unrostered_players

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful caveat about eligibility checks, but does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or any auth/rate-limit context; with annotations lowering the bar, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the limitation placed second. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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?

With five parameters, a 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, this is under-specified. The agent doesn't learn what result objects look like, how query/position interact, or how pagination works, so it is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. An agent gets no guidance on query syntax, position allowed values, limit/offset semantics, or league_id beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Find unrostered players') and clarifies the scope by stating it does not verify waiver or immediate-add eligibility. This differentiates it from siblings like search_players or get_trending_players, which imply broader or different player searches.

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 use for browsing unrostered players and gives an important when-not: don't treat results as waiver/eligibility-verified. However, it never names an alternative tool or gives a positive condition for choosing this tool over siblings.

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