yahoo_sports_standings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results come from Yahoo's server-rendered page, that soccer leagues return ungrouped tables, and that record.points is populated (3 per win, 1 per draw). It also notes the unsupported league. This goes beyond basic intent and covers key quirks, though it omits any authentication, rate limit, or pagination details.

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 slightly long but each sentence earns its place: the first defines the core output, the second lists accepted leagues, and the third clarifies soccer exceptions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The length is justified given the complex enum and behavioral nuances, though it could be tightened by moving the league list into the schema description.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately tells an agent what to expect: standings data with specific fields, grouping behavior, and league-specific exceptions. It covers the key decision-relevant variation (soccer leagues differ). It lacks explicit return format details like JSON structure or pagination, but for a standings tool this is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by enumerating the exact league values and highlighting the exclusion of college-womens-basketball. It also explains league-specific output variations (soccer ungrouped tables, points calculation), which is valuable context the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 the tool returns league standings with record, streak, games back, and clinch status, grouped by conference/division. It specifies the data source (server-rendered Yahoo Sports page) and lists the supported leaguesred. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other standings tools like espn_standings or mlb_standings, which slightly reduces distinguishability.

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 explains which leagues are supported and calls out an exclusion (college-womens-basketball), but it never says when to choose this tool over sibling standings tools. There is no mention of alternatives or criteria like 'use this for Yahoo-specific data' or 'prefer espn_standings for NBA'. The context is limited to internal behavior, not selection guidance.

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