Get League Losers Bracket

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's behavioral disclosure adds minimal new information (the return structure includes matchups and results). No contradiction exists.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, clear annotations, no nested objects or output schema), the description provides all necessary information: purpose, parameter specification, return type, and example usage.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds value by clarifying the parameter's role through examples and the Args section, making its semantics more concrete than the minimal schema description 'Sleeper league ID'.

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 ('Get') and explicitly defines the resource as 'consolation/toilet bowl (losers bracket)', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'sleeper_get_league_winners_bracket' by naming and context.

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 examples ('Show me the toilet bowl bracket' and 'Who came in last place?') that imply usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the winners bracket, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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