yahoo_sports_team_roster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says results come from sports.yahoo.com's own server-rendered roster page, which suggests a stable read-only HTML page source. It also lists exactly which player attributes are included. It neither overpromises nor contradicts the annotations.

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 efficient: it opens with the core purpose, then enumerates the returned fields, then gives the league enum and the input guidance. The long league list is necessary because the schema lacks enums, so it is not wasteful. The key instructions are front-loaded.

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-only roster tool, the description covers all essential information: the exact data returned, the source, the legal league values, and how to find a team slug. No output schema is present, but the caller can infer the response will contain the listed roster fields. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 only gives the bare labels 'Yahoo Sports team slug' and 'League key', but the description augments this considerably by enumerating all accepted league values and explaining how to obtain a valid team slug from the scoreboard/standings response with examples. The parameter guidance is comprehensive and directly actionable.

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 a team's full roster' and lists the exact fields (position, jersey number, status, injury, physicals, college, and experience), giving an agent a clear idea of what it will get. The reference to the Yahoo Sports server-rendered roster page distinguishes it from sibling roster tools like espn_team_roster or mlb_team_roster.

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 actionable usage context: to get the required team param, use the scoreboard or standings response, with concrete examples such as 'green-bay' and 'la-lakers'. It does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over a sibling roster provider, but the Yahoo Sports framing and schema make the appropriate scenario clear.

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