yahoo_sports_team

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the source ('sports.yahoo.com's own server-rendered team page') and the output contents, implying a read operation. However, it omits any mention of freshness, availability, auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape beyond the field list, which is a moderate gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and contains useful parameter guidance, but the full league enum list is redundantly repeated when the input schema already defines it. The opening 'Yahoo Sports team detail' sentence also adds little beyond the tool name. It is not bloated overall, but not every component earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the tool returns, the data source, and how to source the team slug. It is sufficient for an agent to call correctly, though it could additionally note error behavior or data freshness.

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% for both parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain the team slug from scoreboard/standings responses and giving concrete examples like 'green-bay' and 'la-lakers'. The league enum list largely duplicates the schema, so no extra credit is earned there.

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 exactly what the tool returns: one team's identity, colors, conference/division, and current standing summary. This is a specific verb-plus-resource and clearly separates it from roster, schedule, and scoreboard tools by content, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 clear context: use it when you need a single team's detail and standing summary. It also provides actionable guidance on obtaining the required team slug from the scoreboard or standings response, though it does not give when-not-to-use exclusions or explicitly point to sibling tools.

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