yahoo_sports_game

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does note that data comes from sports.yahoo.com's server-rendered game page and spells out the returned content, making the read-only nature apparent. However, it does not mention limitations like live-data availability, historical coverage, or potential html scraping fragility.

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 puts purpose first, then lists the full league set, and closes with the game-slug derivation example. The league list is long but necessary given the bare schema, and every sentence carries useful information without filler.

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?

With two string parameters and no output schema, it covers what the tool returns (matchup, period line score, team stat totals), how to source the game slug, and all league keys. Missing edge-case behaviors like error handling on invalid slugs or legacy data are not addressed, but the core usage needs are fully covered.

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?

The schema only labels 'league' as 'League', but the description enumerates every accepted league value, effectively compensating for the missing enum. It also explains exactly how to derive the 'game' parameter from another response's url and gives a concrete example slug, giving an agent a complete invocation recipe.

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 what the tool does: returns one game's boxscore (matchup, line score by period, and team stat totals) from a server-rendered Yahoo Sports page. It distinguishes itself from scoreboard/schedule tools by specifying a single game and by referencing scoreboard/team-schedule responses as its inputs.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool: after obtaining a game slug from a scoreboard or team-schedule response's game url. It doesn't list any exclusions or alternative game-summary tools, but the entry-point relationship is explicit and actionable.

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