yahoo_sports_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the source ('sports.yahoo.com's own server-rendered game page'), the returned content ('matchup, line score by period, and team stat totals'), and the dependency on a scoreboard/schedule response. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a simple read-only boxscore getter the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the slug example is useful. However, the description devotes a long sentence to re-listing all league enum values that are already present in the input schema's enum, which is redundant and bloats the text.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed to call it: both required parameters, how to derive the game slug, the league values, and an outline of the returned data. It could add error/failure behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% (both game and league have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by spelling out the league enum values, clarifying the slug is 'the last path segment' of a game url, and giving a concrete example ('cleveland-guardians-detroit-tigers-460811106'), which goes slightly beyond the 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 opens with 'Yahoo Sports game boxscore' and immediately specifies it 'Returns one game's boxscore (matchup, line score by period, and team stat totals)'. This is a clear verb-resource pair with explicit scope limiting it to a single game. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling boxscore tools like mlb_game_boxscore, so it stops 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 explains how to obtain the game slug: 'Get the game slug from a scoreboard or team-schedule response's game url (the last path segment)'. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (after a scoreboard/schedule call) and that it should not be used to fetch multiple games. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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