get_week_projections

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data is public, results are sorted by PPR points, and passing a league_id changes results to unrostered players only. This goes beyond the safe-read signal and helps an agent anticipate output ordering and scoping behavior.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the essential purpose and key behavioral modifier with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 annotations and a schema that includes enums and defaults, the description covers the main invocation-relevant details: data source, projection/stat duality, sorting, and the league_id filter. It does not describe return structure in depth, but that is partially mitigated by the mention of point totals and PPR sorting.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify category by mentioning 'projections or actual stats' and explains the effect of league_id. However, it does not describe season, week, position, or limit semantics, though those parameter names and the schema enums/defaults make them reasonably self-explanatory.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read Sleeper's public week projections or actual stats with point totals, sorted by PPR points.' It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool get_player_week_stats_and_projections, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides useful context such as public data and the league_id behavior ('A league ID limits results to unrostered players'), which implies when league_id should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_unrostered_players or get_player_week_stats_and_projections.

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