yahoo_sports_standings

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the data source ('sports.yahoo.com's own server-rendered standings page'), supported league enum, the exclusion of college-womens-basketball, and how soccer leagues differ structurally. This goes beyond a simple assertion that standings are returned.

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 long but every sentence is informative. It front-loads the core purpose and return structure, then enumerates supported leagues and edge cases. The enum list is lengthy but necessary because the schema lacks an explicit enum constraint.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, what fields are included, how it is grouped for different leagues, which leagues are unsupported, and the unusual soccer behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 description only says 'League key', but the description supplies the full accepted league enum, including variants like 'ligamx-apertura' and 'champions-league'. It also explains league-specific semantics, such as soccer leagues returning ungrouped tables with `record.points` populated. This adds substantial meaning beyond the minimal 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?

Description clearly states it returns league standings with specific fields (record, streak, games back, clinch status), grouped by conference/division. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yahoo_sports_scoreboard and yahoo_sports_team by naming the exact resource and structure returned.

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 gives explicit context on when this tool is appropriate: when retrieving Yahoo Sports standings for a supported league. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance by listing the exclusion of college-womens-basketball and describing soccer-specific behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the accepted leagues and behavioral conditions are clearly delineated.

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