yahoo_sports_olympics_medals

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint takes no parameters, always reflects whichever games Yahoo currently has data for, and comes from Yahoo's own server-rendered page. It does not describe the unavailable state, but for such a simple fetch this is adequate.

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 with the most important fact: the tool returns the current Olympics medal count. There is slight repetition of Yahoo Sports and current Olympic games, but each sentence still adds necessary information, so it remains concise overall.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential information: return content, fields, ranking, source, current-edition behavior, and the absence of selection parameters. Nothing else is required to invoke it with confidence.

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 has zero parameters, and the description adds valuable clarification by stating that no parameter can select a prior edition. This prevents the agent from trying to pass a games or year argument, which is a real risk without that explanation.

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 uses a clear verb and object: it returns the current Olympic games' full medal count by country, with exact fields and ranking. It also explains the current-edition scope, which differentiates it from the other sports and scoreboard tools in the sibling list.

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 states when to use the tool: whenever the current Olympic medal table from Yahoo Sports is needed. It explicitly excludes historical or prior-edition selection, although it does not name an alternative tool; that is understandable given no direct alternative seems to exist.

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