yahoo_sports_golf_schedule

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the source as Yahoo Sports' own public tournament-schedule JSON API and enumerates the returned data fields, which is helpful. It does not discuss response format, pagination, freshness, or any other operational behaviors, so coverage is moderate rather than strong.

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 only three sentences and each earns its place: the return value, the API source, and the tour enum plus id usage. The opening phrase is slightly redundant with the tool name, but otherwise it is tight and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers everything needed: exact call intent, accepted tour values, optional season semantics, and a pointer to how results connect to the leaderboard tool. A reasonable agent can select and invoke this correctly without further inference.

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 of parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by listing all accepted values for the tour parameter even though the schema only says 'Golf tour key', and it explains how the tournament id relates to the leaderboard endpoint. The season default is left to the schema, but the added enum detail is meaningful.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('golf tour's tournament schedule for a season'), and enumerates the returned fields: name, dates, status, purse, and venue. It also ties the tool to its sibling by noting tournament IDs feed the golf-leaderboard endpoint, sharply distinguishing this schedule tool from the leaderboard tool.

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 makes it clear the tool is for golf tournament schedules and points to the leaderboard endpoint as the consumer of tournament IDs, which implies a workflow. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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