Get Draft Traded Picks

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned fields (round, original owner roster, current owner roster), which goes beyond the annotation information. No contradictions.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, arguments, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter usage, return values, and example queries. No additional information is necessary for an agent to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds examples of usage that illustrate the parameter's role ('What picks were traded in draft 987654321?'), providing practical context beyond the schema description.

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 gets 'all picks that were traded within a specific Sleeper draft', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'sleeper_get_draft_picks' (which presumably gets all picks) by explicitly focusing on traded picks.

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 clear examples of when to use the tool (e.g., 'What picks were traded in draft 987654321?'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage context is implied but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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