Get League Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a list of users with specific fields (user IDs, display names, team names, avatar IDs), which is helpful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise with a clear structure: one sentence for purpose, then 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Examples' sections. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool returns and includes examples. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete understanding 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 100% (league_id described in schema). The description only restates 'The Sleeper league ID' without adding new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter meaning.

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 action ('Get all users'), the resource ('in a Sleeper fantasy league'), and the scope ('with their team names and metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sleeper_get_league (league info) or sleeper_get_league_rosters (rosters).

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?

Examples provide context for when the tool is used (e.g., 'Who are the managers in league 123456?'). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use cases.

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