yahoo_sports_news

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear the tool is a read-style operation: it returns articles with specific fields from sports.yahoo.com's server-rendered news page. However, it does not disclose pagination, article count, ordering, freshness limits, or behavior for invalid league keys, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first sentence, return fields come immediately after, and the parameter value list is the only long section. There is no boilerplate or filler. The long enum list earns its place because the schema leaves the accepted values undocumented.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description already gives the output shape, the source page, and the canonical league values. The main missing context is article count/pagination and whether the result is a fixed-length feed, but a caller can still invoke the tool correctly with what is provided.

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 describes `league` as "League key", but the description provides the complete, authoritative list of accepted league identifiers such as `nfl`, `nba`, `mls`, and many more. Without that list, a caller would have to guess the value. This materially exceeds what the input schema alone communicates.

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 concrete resource and action: it returns recent news articles for a Yahoo Sports league, and even lists the returned fields (title, summary, author, published time, link). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like yahoo_sports_scoreboard or yahoo_sports_standings, which expose different data.

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 implies the intended use: call this when you need recent league-level news from Yahoo Sports, and use the `league` parameter to pick the specific league. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the league-news framing and the source mention provide enough situational context.

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