yahoo_sports_team

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data provenance (server-rendered team page, implying a static scraping source) and that the standing summary is 'current', which adds real context. However, it omits basics such as whether the call is read-only, how stale the data may be, and what happens with invalid league/team values, leaving the agent to guess at operational behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the long league enum earns its place because the schema has no enum to capture it. There is minor redundancy between opening 'Yahoo Sports team detail' and next sentence's 'Returns one team's detail', and the enum list inflates length, preventing a perfect score.

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 small two-parameter read-only detail tool, the description covers the return content types, data source, all valid league values, and how to obtain the team slug, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Gaps include no explicit note about handling invalid input or whether a team must be in the current season, plus no mention of the fact that no annotations exist for safety.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description clearly beats that: the schema's 'League key' is a placeholder, while the description enumerates all 23 accepted league values and gives concrete slug examples ('green-bay', 'la-lakers'). It also tells the agent where to fetch the slug, which materially enriches both parameters beyond the schema text.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns one team's detail') with an explicit field inventory (identity, colors, conference/division, current standing summary) and a named source (sports.yahoo.com's own server-rendered team page). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like yahoo_sports_team_roster, yahoo_sports_team_schedule, and espn_team without needing to open any schema.

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 concrete sourcing guidance for the required team parameter ('Get a team slug from the scoreboard or standings response') with examples, which is genuinely helpful. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over siblings such as yahoo_sports_team_roster, yahoo_sports_team_schedule, or espn_team, nor when not to use it; the intended selection logic is implied only by the field list.

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